Cases dismissed for failure to respond require a deeper investigation. Judges can approve summary judgments for not responding in time and dismiss a case. Meigs and Meigs' lawyer state the document for an amended no-evidence summary judgment was never seen. Read Meigs' "Motion for Reinstatement" and "Letter to the Court" that addresses document tampering.
Unknown to the public, the court clerk holds ultimate control over whether a document is viewable on the court site or not. With the process called, "copying the envelope", the document remains hidden from the docket and opposing side, and gives a litigant time to make corrections whilst retaining the original date of the document and date of the email sent. The benefit lies in being able to stay within the given time-frame as dictated by the courts without being dismissed for failing to reply in a set time. Correcting and retaining the date clearly offers positive benefits.
The other edge of the sword lies in the unchecked control by the clerk which creates the potential for corruption and document tampering. If a document requires a response within a specific time-frame, the court clerk can withhold that document from the opposing side seeing it on the docket and responding on time. Once released by the court clerk, no indication can be seen that the document had not ever been viewable during the required times for response as the document retains the old original upload date and sends the email with the old original upload date. Hence, the document is not seen by the opposing side until too late to respond allowing the judge to dismiss a case for not responding. Such tampering goes unchecked and unnoticed.
In Meigs v. Zucker in the First Appellate Court, Meigs notes this discrepancy in the "Motion for Reinstatement" regarding the important December 7th, 2020 "Request for Rehearing." Read the "Letter to the Court" over the concerns regarding document tampering in the appellate court.
Protect yourself. Protect your family. Protect the public.
Spread the word.