I’ve having difficulty with all of the /s/ documents emanating from the Clerk of Appelate Courts.

A so-called “judgment” showed up in my firm’s email inbox, looking like this.

Judgment – Non-costs

It does not appear to be signed by anyone.  The whole notion of “attest,” is that a human being steps forward and says I witnessed this.  You can’t have an /s/ above a sig line that has no typewritten name below it.  I am demanding to see a fully-executed (signed by human beings) version of this so-called judgment.

The so-called judgment came in my email inbox with the following link:

A document has been filed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Case No. A12-0555.  To view this document click on the following link: http://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/document.do?doView=&document=d689f780dea860a021bcb518b9361948be1101fcbbbee03a28192ffee4786e82

For your reference, the District Court/Agency Case No(s) (if applicable) is/are: 27-CV-10-12557

If you are unable to open this E-Notice by clicking on the hyperlink, copy & paste the text of the hyperlink directly into your Internet browser.

If you are still unable to view the document, contact pmacs.enotice.help@courts.state.mn.us.

Clerk of Appellate Courts

**Do not reply to this message. Replies to this message are routed to an unmonitored mailbox.**

But the wierdness continues.

This so-called judgment came in State v. Robin Magee (I added the word Magee to the title of the doc).

Judgment – Non-costs Magee

To my understanding, Magee had received an extension to file petition for review by the Supreme Court (although the doc I saw also came with an /s/), so the time was not yet up to file.  Huh.  Wierd to get a “judgment” before the petition for review is filed.  But given the things I’ve seen going on up there, I guess there’s a lot that needs looking into.

Magee – CoA Decision

The above so-called “decision” of the COA (folks, the problem with messing around with the integrity of the system is that even a tiny bit of variance means you don’t trust what you are getting and therefore can’t count on it), deemed “unpublished.”  Now, you may have seen my post about Minn. Stat. 480A.08, Subd. 3.  This case sported numerous important issues, issues of first impression, issues of federal law, procedure, and even the meaning of “intent” in Minnesota.  This should have been a published opinion.  Who made the decision not to publish it?  How much power is given to an administrator in the Appellate Courts.

Addition:  these pcmacs docs coming to the firm’s email inbox curiously disappeared earlier than August 2012.

Again:  If it is not in my email inbox, and I can’t access it online, I’m ready to say it is not public law.  Members of the public surely cannot be bound by opinions that disappear.