What the Record Establishes
- The First District rejected Envelope No. 39310613 on August 4, 2026 with the comment "Contact your attorney at the State Appellate Defenders office."
- On August 14, 2026 the Chief Deputy Clerk of the First District wrote that the rejection "was done in error."
- The same message states: "You currently have the right to file into your case pro-se," and that intake staff "have been instructed not to reject your filings if they are otherwise in order."
- The First District’s own July 31 order places the record obligation on the appellant by name, due September 9, 2026.
What They Have Not Produced
- Why an identical rejection stands in the Second District after the First District called it error.
- Whether the AOIC will issue the corrective guidance to reviewing-court clerks that the August 14 complaint demands.
- Which instruction governs a litigant told by one clerk to file and by another that he may not.
This is the page that makes the rest of the August record impossible to wave away. Same litigant. Same objection to appointed counsel. Same week. One appellate clerk’s office called the rejection error and fixed it. The other put the refusal in writing and left it standing.
Please be advised that the rejection of your e-filing submission in Envelope No. 39310613 on August 4, 2026, was done in error.
Lisa Franklin, Chief Deputy Clerk, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District — August 14, 2026
You currently have the right to file into your case pro-se. Our intake staff have been instructed not to reject your filings if they are otherwise in order.
Why the First District’s answer is the benchmark and not the exception
The correction is what Rule 9(h) compliance looks like when an intake desk is asked a narrow question and checks. It identifies the envelope, states the date, characterizes the act as error, states the litigant’s right, and directs staff. Four sentences. No judge was required, because no judicial question was presented — which is precisely the point the Second District record leaves open.
The First District also created an obligation only the appellant can discharge
The First District’s July 31 order in No. 1-26-0055 appoints counsel, extends the record deadline to September 9, 2026, and restricts the appellant in no way at all. It places the record obligation on him by name. For ten days its clerk’s office was telling him to go speak to his lawyer instead. A litigant cannot obey both instructions, and the motion filed August 14 in that court asks it to say which one governs — stating on its face that an answer against him resolves the conflict just as well as an answer for him.
The comparison is the evidence
| The door | Who closed it | Date | What the writing says |
|---|---|---|---|
| The appellate intake desk | Jeffrey H. Kaplan, Clerk of the Court Clerk of the Appellate Court, Second District | July 31 – August 14, 2026 | “Unfortunately, since you’re represented by counsel, only your counsel is permitted to make requests of the court or my office on your behalf.” |
| The right to file anything at all | Order entered July 31, 2026 Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District | July 31, 2026 | “Now having been appointed counsel, appellant himself shall file nothing further with this court and shall not communicate by any means with appellee’s counsel.” |
| The lawyer the court appointed instead | Christopher M. McCoy, Deputy Defender Office of the State Appellate Defender, Second District | August 7 – August 10, 2026 | “Attached is a copy of the appellate court’s order denying our motion to withdraw. As a result, our office will continue to be the attorney on your case.” |
| The record that says who owns the warrant | FOIA File No. 06361719 Illinois State Police, Freedom of Information Office | August 13, 2026 | “ISP does not maintain independent, non-exempt public records confirming municipal warrant provenance outside of the restricted LEADS operational and administrative architecture.” |
| The written order of a Cook County court | Chambers of the Hon. Neil H. Cohen Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Calendar 5 | August 12, 2026 | “The Court finds no present emergency.” |
This site does not assert that anyone in the Second District acted in bad faith, and nothing here alleges a crime. It states a difference between two written records produced by two offices of the same court on the same day, and it names the office — the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts — whose job it is to resolve exactly that difference. The complaint asking it to do so is here.