What the Record Establishes
- The eFileIL notice generated by the electronic filing manager states the envelope number, the case number, the rejection reason "Rejection by Clerk," and the complete comment "See order of 8/7."
- The submission timestamp precedes the order the rejection cites by one calendar day.
- The Illinois Supreme Court’s Reviewing Courts Electronic Filing Rejection Standards, effective April 1, 2026, require under Standard No. 22 that the clerk "[INSERT SPECIFIC REASON FOR REJECTION AND HOW TO CORRECT.]"
- The rejection notice itself tells the filer that Rule 9 permits a motion to treat a corrected document as filed on its original date — relief the July 31 order forbids him to request.
What They Have Not Produced
- The native eFileIL audit trail and transaction history for Envelope No. 39386845: submission metadata, routing logs, review timestamps, and system-generated event records.
- The identity, job title, and review timestamps of the clerk personnel who reviewed and entered the rejection.
- Any case-specific intake flag, screening instruction, routing rule, or supervisory directive placed on Appeal No. 2-26-0352 or on the filer’s eFileIL account.
- The rejection-event configuration metadata identifying which published Rejection Standard was selected in the Tyler Technologies portal.
A document cannot violate an order that does not yet exist. That is the whole of it, and the timestamps are not in dispute because both of them were generated by the state’s own electronic filing manager.
- Aug. 6, 11:31 a.m.Envelope 39386845 submitted — Brady/Giglio records, special-prosecutor request
- Aug. 7, 12:15 p.m.Clerk’s Office rejects it: “See order of 8/7”
- Aug. 7The order named in that comment is entered
- Aug. 14, 2:23 p.m.The Clerk states the rule in writing: only counsel may make requests
Four artifacts, all preserved. They cannot be read as one clean chronology, and the native audit trail that would resolve them has been formally demanded from the Clerk, from the AOIC, and, under Habeas Rule 6, from a federal court.
What the standards actually require
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 9(h) exists to eliminate arbitrary rejections at the intake desk. It incorporates the published Reviewing Courts Electronic Filing Rejection Standards, which set out a uniform schedule of permissible rejection grounds. Standard No. 22 — the catch-all the clerk selected, “Rejection by Clerk (see comments)” — is the one standard that carries a mandatory instruction to the clerk: state the specific reason, and state how to correct it.
“See order of 8/7” states neither. It names a document, dated after the submission, and stops.
The instruction on the face of the rejection notice is the one the filer is barred from following
The Tyler-generated notice tells every filer the same thing: if the corrected document will be late, Rule 9 permits a motion asking the court to treat it as filed on its original date, and that motion must be filed within five court days. In this case the same order invoked to refuse the filing is the order forbidding the filer to file the motion the notice describes. The remedy printed on the refusal is closed by the refusal.
Where this record is now
The envelope is Exhibit C to the administrative complaint transmitted to the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts on August 14, which demands a compliance audit and a preservation directive to JMIS and Tyler Technologies. It is also the subject of Request No. 1 in the Habeas Rule 6 discovery motion filed in the Northern District of Illinois, which asks a federal judge for the native audit trail the state clerk has not produced.