What the Record Establishes
- She emailed the filed papers to the judge, told colleagues the State would get them, and did not include the man who wrote them.
What They Have Not Produced
- The docket receipt and service notice showing what the filer was independently sent, and when.
- The case-management event history for the same papers.
- Any judicial staff handling notes attached to the transmission.
The Power This Office Actually Holds
A Court Services Representative assigned to a courtroom is the operational link between the clerk’s office, the judge, and the parties. The role controls what physically and electronically reaches the bench, and what notice goes out about it. In a courtroom, this position sees every filing before the judge does.
- Routes filed papers to the assigned judge
- Communicates courtroom scheduling and handling to the parties
- Controls the internal notice that accompanies a filing to the bench
- Custodian of courtroom-level handling records
The email is not evasive, which is exactly why it can be audited. On October 3, 2025, Courtroom T-611 representative Amy Bonczkowski emailed filed papers to Judge Christopher Stride, stated she was sending them to the State, and then alerted other courtroom participants that the judge had been given the material. The person who authored those papers is not on the header.
The distinction that decides this
Clerks route filings to judges as a matter of routine, and parties are properly served through the docket rather than through internal staff email. This page does not claim the papers were secretly considered or that the filer was denied his documents. It claims what the document shows: an internal channel about this case carried the court and the prosecution and did not carry the defendant.
The context is what gives it weight
This is the same case in which the clerk’s office refused a pro se filing path in writing on June 8, 2026, in which a substantive omnibus filing appeared on the portal as “Correspondence”, and in which a stamped filing conflicts with its own PDF metadata. A pro se litigant has no counsel to be copied through. If he is not on the message, no one on his side is.
The records that settle it in an afternoon
The docket receipt, the service notice, the case-management event history, and any judicial-staff handling notes. All are inside the Odyssey system this case has been demanding since June.
The Documented Chronology
- October 3, 2025
She emails filed papers to Judge Stride and states the State will receive them.
- October 3, 2025
She alerts other courtroom participants that the judge has been sent the material.
- June 2026
The same courtroom becomes the subject of a filing-access dispute and a substitution motion.
- July 29, 2026
The email surfaces in the county’s production.
Still Not Produced
Each of these records exists inside a government system. Each has been requested. None has been supplied.
- The docket receipt and service notice showing what the filer was independently sent, and when.
- The case-management event history for the same papers.
- Any judicial staff handling notes attached to the transmission.
If any of it is produced, or if Amy Bonczkowski disputes a documented fact on this page, the response will be published here in full, with its date. Read the correction standard.
Follow the same record into the next office
Every named official → · The investigation behind this dossier → · Add context or rate this profile →