No Response to Request for Discovery

[quirkyquark]

It is my understanding that the officer does not receive a request to file his written declaration until AFTER the defendant submits his written declaration.

That may be the case in some counties. Certainly not in all.

The rest of your spammy info dump has been discussed or debunked elsewhere.

[That Guy]

You CAN inquire with the court then if the officer has submitted his declaration, and if so, get a copy so you can see his case BEFORE you submit your declaration (no rule against doing so.)

Quirky... Do you really think that a clerk in their right state of mind would allow this? Seriously?

And have you tried it or know of anyone who's tried it with any degree of success?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my understanding that the officer does not receive a request to file his written declaration until AFTER the defendant submits his written declaration. As such. you can probably obtain his written declaration before your trial de novo.

And what part of the process or the language in the CVC or even the Rules of Court would lead you to ^that^ understanding?

I'll point you to the relevant Rule of Court:

Rule 4.210

(b) Procedure

(5) Instructions to arresting officer

If the clerk receives the defendant’s Request for Trial by Written Declaration (form TR-205) and bail by the due date, the clerk must deliver or mail to the arresting officer’s agency Notice and Instructions to Arresting Officer (form TR-210) and Officer’s Declaration (form TR-235) with a copy of the Notice to Appear and a specified return date for receiving the officer’s declaration. After receipt of the officer’s declaration, or at the close of the officer’s return date if no officer’s declaration is filed, the clerk must submit the case file with all declarations and other evidence received to the court for decision.

Note the "MUST" there making it a requirement, not an option!

Now, if you happened to submit your TBD request, your declaration, your required bail amount on the same day and all by the due date, then you've left the clerk no other option but to send out the officer's documents after receiving yours. Otherwise, your understanding would be wrong!

Also, I agree with Quirky... The fact that you are still implying that any of the other arguments you've alluded to would work, is clear proof that you haven't been around a California Traffic court.

And lastly, you need to stop spamming other people's threads with your pointless gibberish!

[cdwjava]

I have never known the officer's declaration to be delayed pending the defendant's. As a rule, that would be foolish because the state might be too late to get the officer's statement in, and defendants could easily game the system and wait until the last minute.

Also, while I have heard of defendants being able to get a copy of the officer's statement AFTER adjudication and before a TDN, I don't know that it will be permitted before the matter has been submitted to the court. I can't say that it would be prohibited, but it seems unlikely that the defendant might receive the statement in advance of his own statement.

[cdwjava]

Well, its not a sealed record but an open one of the court. And I see no harm in it. The facts are the facts. So I imagine a defendant could ask to get a copy of the filed pleadings.

I don't know if anyone has gone through many cases and seen if the officer files after the defendant. So unless I see a study showing this I assume its just something to chew on.

All I can tell you is that we get the form from the court, a deadline, and we fill it out and return it. Most the time the deadline is rather far out there - two or more weeks ... when I was in San Diego, it was usually about a month if memory serves.

Whether the statement form is officially part of the record before it is brought before the judge, I cannot say. I suspect not, but, there may be some bureaucratic and legal idiosyncracies involved in this.

[quirkyquark]

Quirky... Do you really think that a clerk in their right state of mind would allow this? Seriously?
And have you tried it or know of anyone who's tried it with any degree of success?

Actually, I did try it with my recent case, and was told "no problem" until they realized that the officer hadn't submitted his declaration. (I was interested more in the when rather than the what, but I thought I'd try asking....

I have never known the officer's declaration to be delayed pending the defendant's. As a rule, that would be foolish because the state might be too late to get the officer's statement in, and defendants could easily game the system and wait until the last minute.

I've always seen the same due dates for both defendant/officer too, but apparently, this post suggests that a San Mateo Superior Court sends out the declaration form to the officer AFTER receiving the defendant's TBD, with a 15-day deadline.

Well, its not a sealed record but an open one of the court. And I see no harm in it. The facts are the facts. So I imagine a defendant could ask to get a copy of the filed pleadings.

Whether the statement form is officially part of the record before it is brought before the judge, I cannot say.

From what I can see of the various statutes, everything in a typical adult defendant's infraction case file is open by default, unless ordered sealed or otherwise exempt from disclosure by law. Even if it may not be "public" (say, for a juvenile case), the defendant and his/her counsel have absolute access to the file. So, yes, you should be able to get the officer's TBD before adjudication; he can get yours too, though I doubt he'd play the waiting "game" --- that comes with the risk of being late that Carl mentioned.

Here's the relevant parts of the Gov. Code:

Unless access is otherwise restricted by law, court records created, maintained, preserved, or reproduced under subdivisions (a) and (c) shall be made reasonably accessible to all members of the public for viewing and duplication as the paper records would have been accessible.

(a) "Court record" shall consist of the following:

1. All filed papers and documents in the case folder, but if no case folder is created by the court, all filed papers and documents that would have been in the case folder if one had been created.
2. Administrative records filed in an action or proceeding, depositions, paper exhibits, transcripts, including preliminary hearing transcripts, and recordings of electronically recorded proceedings filed, lodged, or maintained in connection with the case, unless disposed of earlier in the case pursuant to law.
3. Other records listed under subdivision (j) of Section 68152.

A TBD is certainly part of the case folder. If you think about it, it's essentially an affidavit -- analogous to a deposition. I don't see why it would be exempt once it's filed in the court. Assuming both you and the officer have the same due date, if you wanted his statements in preparing your own TBD, you could trek to the court the day before and see if you could get your hands on a copy.

Of course, if all you add is "Oh, no, I didn', your honor!" in response, it will receive as little weight as your testimony would at trial. In limited circumstances, it may give you a tactical advantage, though. For example, in my 22350 that's on appeal, the survey was 9 years old. In his TBD (page 2), the officer left the dates/times of the equipment check blank, and also misstated that the survey was between 5-7 years old, thus leaving the "registered engineer has evaluated" checkbox blank. These directly violate the 40802 requirements to extend a survey beyond five years. If I'd known, I could have made a 1118-type motion on the TBD to dismiss for insufficient evidence to rebut a presumed speed trap. But I mailed mine in, and the officer filed his on the due date....

[That Guy]

Actually, I did try it with my recent case, and was told "no problem" until they realized that the officer hadn't submitted his declaration.

And that, as far as you're concerned, makes it right?
And if so, would you feel it was OK if the officer obtained your declaration before submitting his?

You know and I know that the answer to both those questions is "NO"!

I've always seen the same due dates for both defendant/officer too, but apparently, this post suggests that a San Mateo Superior Court sends out the declaration form to the officer AFTER receiving the defendant's TBD, with a 15-day deadline.

Oh, no HELL NO!

Don't get me started on that guy again!!!

At any rate, I think in that case, and in spite of your advising him to submit a request for a TBD and submit his declaration at a later date, he went ahead and submitted his request and his declaration on the same date. So in theory, the officer should have be given 25 days instead of just 15!

Nothing odd or out of the ordinary on that one!

From what I can see of the various statutes, everything in a typical adult defendant's infraction.....

Alright! STOP RIGHT THERE!

What we do know is that the typical average rule/statute or code section does not apply to the TBD process.

I think the perfect example on that would be PC 1382... This might turn out to be example #2!

Even if it may not be "public" (say, for a juvenile case), the defendant and his/her counsel have absolute access to the file. So, yes, you should be able to get the officer's TBD before adjudication; he can get yours too, though I doubt he'd play the waiting "game" --- that comes with the risk of being late that Carl mentioned.

Here's the relevant parts of the Gov. Code:





A TBD is certainly part of the case folder. If you think about it, it's essentially an affidavit -- analogous to a deposition. I don't see why it would be exempt once it's filed in the court. Assuming both you and the officer have the same due date, if you wanted his statements in preparing your own TBD, you could trek to the court the day before and see if you could get your hands on a copy.

Of course, if all you add is "Oh, no, I didn', your honor!" in response, it will receive as little weight as your testimony would at trial. In limited circumstances, it may give you a tactical advantage, though.

I'd love to see a judge's reaction on this one! You know and I know it would not fly! So just because the clerk was oblivious to what he/she was doing, does not make it right! And for one, it is not an affidavit, it is the officer's testimony, the prosecution's case in chief nor is it a deposition as this is a criminal matter not a civil trial!

For example, in my 22350 that's on appeal, the survey was 9 years old. In his TBD (page 2), the officer left the dates/times of the equipment check blank, and also misstated that the survey was between 5-7 years old, thus leaving the "registered engineer has evaluated" checkbox blank. These directly violate the 40802 requirements to extend a survey beyond five years. If I'd known, I could have made a 1118-type motion on the TBD to dismiss for insufficient evidence to rebut a presumed speed trap. But I mailed mine in, and the officer filed his on the due date....

First, are you saying you submitted a TBD BEFORE obtaining a copy of the survey?
If so, I'd say: "Shame on you"... And no, errors in the officer's declaration or presentation of the case are not reason for you to get a free look at his declaration. Your only recourse was to file for a TDN.

But wait, you did get a copy of the officer's declaration AFTER the TBD decision, you became aware of the errors and omissions he had made. And in your TDN, you could have made the same arguments you would have made in the TBD had you known, and yet you were still found guilty. So I don't see how not being able to view the officer's declaration prior to adjudicating the TBD would have made much of a difference with "Judge Local"!

If that were to be allowed, why not make the officer's declaration a requirement under discovery?

And with that in mind, if you were of the belief that this is all kosher since before submitting your TBD (since you asked your clerk and he/she said "no problem") why have you been advising people to wait until AFTER the TBD decision, wouldn't be much easier to simply request the officer's declaration before submitting theirs, and get the answers they need, and end it at the TBD level?

[quirkyquark]

Again, this whole thing comes about because of the ambiguity in the Rules of Court. I really think their intent was that the officer's paperwork be sent out only after the defendant's declaration (not just "request") is received. With the current system, suppose neither of the declarations are received by the common due date...shouldn't that result in an acquittal? In that case, would Rule 4.210(d) or (e) apply? Suppose (e), which says [I]"f the defendant does not comply with this rule...the court may deny a trial by written declaration and may proceed as otherwise provided by statute and court rules.". If a court "denied" a trial by declaration in such a case, it would arguably be proceeding in violation of the constitution AND statute (both of which supersede court rules)!

And that, as far as you're concerned, makes it right?

The only "right" I would claim is that of a defendant/counsel (or even the public) to examine everything in the case file.

And if so, would you feel it was OK if the officer obtained your declaration before submitting his?

Sure. If he/she wants to play a game of brinkmanship, where both sides run the risk of being late (and thus defaulting) if they mistime the wait... In any case, if the officer wants to take the time and effort to craft proper rebuttals to my arguments, I say more power to him/her! It's not like the court is ever going to believe just the defendant's word over the officer's!

You know and I know that the answer to both those questions is "NO"!

Again, why? The TBD system is not designed to be adversarial for the sake of convenience, but I don't see any affirmative arguments AGAINST providing access to either side's declaration upon request, if available.

At any rate, I think in that case, and in spite of your advising him to submit a request for a TBD and submit his declaration at a later date, he went ahead and submitted his request and his declaration on the same date. So in theory, the officer should have be given 25 days instead of just 15!

Yes, I agree he probably did that. BUT, 4.210(b)(5) just says "specif[y] a return date"...so it's in the court's discretion to make that 1 day, or 90 days!

Alright! STOP RIGHT THERE!
What we do know is that the typical average rule/statute or code section does not apply to the TBD process.
I think the perfect example on that would be PC 1382... This might turn out to be example #2!

And for one, it is not an affidavit, it is the officer's testimony, the prosecution's case in chief nor is it a deposition as this is a criminal matter not a civil trial!

OK, I assume you're referring to Benhoor. That court made three holdings:

1. PC 1382(a)(3) does not apply to TDNs because they are not "motion for a new trial", as defined by that part of the statute.
2. VC 40902 (which specifies no time limit for the TDN) and Rule 4.210, being more specific statutes, control over the more general PC 1382
3. The federal/state constitutional rights to a speedy trial still apply to TBD/TDN, but require a showing of prejudice to successfully invoke.

This one is a little more difficult to swat away, since access to public records is a constitutional right. (Article I, sec. 3(b).) If the legislature wanted to prevent access to the declarations, they could amend the VC, or even easier, add TBDs to the immense list of exceptions in Gov. Code, sec 6276.

I said "analogous" to a deposition, but that distinction's irrelevant anyway, since Rule 2.550 explicitly makes the TBD a part of the open court record, clarifying Gov. Code §68151:

• (b) Definitions: (1)"Record." Unless the context indicates otherwise, "record" means all or a portion of any document, paper, exhibit, transcript, or other thing filed or lodged with the court.
• (c) Court records presumed to be open: Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.

I'd love to see a judge's reaction on this one! You know and I know it would not fly!

Again, why? Looking at it simply as an application of open court records (as opposed to showing prejudice from denial of access), what overriding public interest can you think of to prevent access? What law requires that the TBD be confidential? Sure, the People have as much of a right to due process, but I'm not saying the officer can't see mine if he wants to! Hell, I even conceded that although the officer is technically a witness and not the prosecutor, he should be able to see mine purely as a member of the public!!

Of course, all of these arguments are purely academic, because the timelines involved in playing this peek-a-boo game leave very little room for judicial intervention. You can't get the court to compel the officer to turn it in before the due date, and unless you're willing to risk not submitting your TBD on time because you waited too long, the issue will probably become moot before a court can decide on it!

First, are you saying you submitted a TBD BEFORE obtaining a copy of the survey?
...
But wait, you did get a copy of the officer's declaration AFTER the TBD decision, you became aware of the errors and omissions he had made. And in your TDN, you could have made the same arguments you would have made in the TBD had you known, and yet you were still found guilty.

Yes, shame on (lazy) me indeed. The RIGHT thing to do with that error, in retrospect, would have been to request a writ of mandate to compel dismissal between the TBD and the TDN --- the court exceeded its jurisdiction, because it had none given 40802, etc.

And no, being able to make the same argument at TDN is NOT "good enough" ... the prosecution has to prove all the requirements to rebut the speed trap presumption as part of its prima facie case--TBD or TDN--which they didn't. Or would you suggest that statute may not apply to the poor little TBDs either?

So I don't see how not being able to view the officer's declaration prior to adjudicating the TBD would have made much of a difference with "Judge Local"!

Well, there is a small chance it MAY have, since Judge TBD (Beverly) was actually a well-respected, retired LASC judge as opposed to Judge Local.

If that were to be allowed, why not make the officer's declaration a requirement under discovery?

Simply because its existence is neither required nor guaranteed at any pre-trial point.

And with that in mind, if you were of the belief that this is all kosher since before submitting your TBD (since you asked your clerk and he/she said "no problem") why have you been advising people to wait until AFTER the TBD decision, wouldn't be much easier to simply request the officer's declaration before submitting theirs, and get the answers they need, and end it at the TBD level?

First, this belief has only been a recent revelation. Such advice would be poor advice for most because, as I mentioned before:

• There are very limited situations in which you could exploit that knowledge, and you'd have to be fairly savvy to do so. Most people would just say something like "officer says I did X, I most emphatically did NOT", which, as we all agree, isn't worth the paper it's written on from the court's perspective.
• If you play this game, you run the very real risk of being late in your submission and defaulting.

[That Guy]

Again, this whole thing comes about because of the ambiguity in the Rules of Court.

I agree they are ambiguous, but that by no means should suggest that an interpretation as far out of field as you're suggesting, should become viable as a result. I am still looking at the officer's declaration as his testimony, i.e. the prosecution's case; you, on the other hand, are suggesting that the defendant is entitled to a preview of that testimony! So really, you're opting to take a written test (a TBD), and yet you expect the professor to hand you the answers a few days prior! And more often than not, unless you research the alleged violation, you're not likely to learn much by planning your defense from the answers backwards.

I really think their intent was that the officer's paperwork be sent out only after the defendant's declaration (not just "request") is received.

And if that were true, wouldn't that make it virtually impossible for your theory to become applicable? In that case, the defendant would NEVER get the opportunity to view the office's declaration before submitting his. So why is it that just because both declarations are sent out simultaneously, that entitles the defendant to a preview?

With the current system, suppose neither of the declarations are received by the common due date...shouldn't that result in an acquittal?

No! Here is why...
Compare it to a real trial...
You're due in court on January 5th...
January 5th comes along and you are not in line at 8:30am...
Judge eventually calls "People v. Quirky Quark"... Then calls it again... No response!
Now, regardless of whether the officer is there or not, you're on the verge of getting tagged with an FTA and a yellow courtesy notice is sent out to you. Fail to appear within 10 days, and you get a 40508, a 40509/40509.5, $300 is added to your fine per PC 1214.1, DMV maybe sent a notice...etc, etc, etc.

So in the case of the TBD, 4.210(e) would apply... And now the court has the option to apply VC 40508(c), or 40509.1 or both.

I've never heard of any of this happening, and I am just making it up as I go along... but in light of the language of 4.210(e), I don't see any reason why it wouldn't apply.

If a court "denied" a trial by declaration in such a case, it would arguably be proceeding in violation of the constitution AND statute (both of which supersede court rules)!

Why would it be a violation of the constitution AND statute? you were given the same opportunity that every other defendant gets to comply with the provisions of the TBD and the time periods specified in the Rules of Court... So any "violation of your rights" was a result of your own actions, not those of the court!

The only "right" I would claim is that of a defendant/counsel (or even the public) to examine everything in the case file.

Since the officer's declaration was not submitted to the court for review, it it not part of the case file as of yet!

"Testimony" is NOT considered "testimony" and is NOT part of the record until it is heard (or "read") by the court!

Sure. If he/she wants to play a game of brinkmanship, where both sides run the risk of being late (and thus defaulting) if they mistime the wait... In any case, if the officer wants to take the time and effort to craft proper rebuttals to my arguments, I say more power to him/her! It's not like the court is ever going to believe just the defendant's word over the officer's!

Point is, neither one of you is entitled to see the other's declaration!

The term "testimony" in the above statement I made:
"Testimony" is NOT considered "testimony" and is NOT part of the record until it is heard (or "read") by the court! Applies to both, the officer's testimony as well as the defendant's!

You know and I know that the answer to both those questions is "NO"!

Again, why? The TBD system is not designed to be adversarial for the sake of convenience, but I don't see any affirmative arguments AGAINST providing access to either side's declaration upon request, if available.

While I cannot dispute the “convenience” aspect of the intent behind a TBD, it is designed after and should conform to the same rules that a normal in-court trial would. And since the defendant does not get to preview the officer's testimony , then get a break to prepare his case, then come back to court to present it, that same process would not and should not be allowed during a TBD!

If you still cannot see the argument against it, then I am not sure you're being as unbiased as you think you are. While it is true that you've stated that the officer would get the same option if it is available, you know that half the time, the officer is following a script and could care less to see anything that the defendant is presenting; as for the other half, the defendant really has nothing to offer or he's caught wind of HA's patented plan of “I am not guilty”, meaning, not much for the officer to see!

OK, I assume you're referring to Benhoor.

Actually, Benhoor never entered my mind but now that I think about it, it was the Benhoor decision that concluded what I had stated...

That court made three holdings:

OK, however, I am only referring to this one:

PC 1382(a)(3) does not apply to TDNs

And I don't even need to include the “because” to make my point. Which is: you simply cannot blindly select any statute and say that it applies to the TBD process because chances are, it might not!

But, just so that I can further prove my point, I will address the “because” part:

because they are not "motion for a new trial", as defined by that part of the statute.

… meaning the TBD process is a strange and different animal, and to (again) blindly throw a dart at a board of statutes and assume that each time you hit one, it will -unquestionably- apply... Its not gonna work!

Furthermore, even the two other holdings in Benhoor which you alluded to, lead to the same conclusion:

[*]VC 40902 (which specifies no time limit for the TDN) and Rule 4.210, being more specific statutes, control over the more general PC 1382

So there are instances where the TBD process does not conform to the standard rules that most statutes conform to.... How can you put forth a blanket statement that GC 68151 is applicable?

And for the 3rd one:

The federal/state constitutional rights to a speedy trial still apply to TBD/TDN, but require a showing of prejudice to successfully invoke.

… Even when you come close to having one apply, there might be a “but” that changes everything!

This one is a little more difficult to swat away, since access to public records is a constitutional right. (Article I, sec. 3(b).)

Again, “testimony” is not part of “public record” until it is heard (“read”) by the court. And I still don't see anything in the constitution, and certainly nothing in Article I, sec. 3(b) that even remotely resembles any mention of a “right to access the testimony that will be presented against you in a criminal matter”.

If the legislature wanted to prevent access to the declarations, they could amend the VC

And the counter argument to that is ALWAYS going to be “if they wanted you to have access, they would not leave it up to the court clerk to hang him/herself, they would have amended the VC!

or even easier, add TBDs to the immense list of exceptions in Gov. Code, sec 6276

I doubt they would include “written TESTIMONY IN A CRIMINAL MATTER”... In fact, I don't see anything that is related to any sort of testimony in a criminal case... So why is it that we don't get a copy of the office's verbal testimony (what I referred to above as a “scripted testimony” in a TDN or a regular trial? I mean, eventually, that will make it into the court file and it will become part of the record. Why not expedite matters and let the defendant have it now?

I said "analogous" to a deposition, but that distinction's irrelevant anyway, since Rule 2.550 explicitly makes the TBD a part of the open court record, clarifying Gov. Code §68151:

(b)*Definitions:*(1)"Record." Unless the context indicates otherwise, "record" means all or a portion of any document, paper, exhibit, transcript, or other thing filed or lodged with the court.
(c)*Court records presumed to be open:*Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.

I see no mention whatsoever in there of a TBD. And if it is your interpretation, I still don't see how you're squeezing “testimony” to fit under that...

Again, why? Looking at it simply as an application of open court records (as opposed to showing prejudice from denial of access)

You cannot look at it simply as an application of open court records simply because it is not part of the court record until it is made so by the court. You cannot present a piece of evidence to the clerk, outside of the official proceeding and consider that evidence as having been admitted into the record. You have to do it during the trial and in the case of the TBD, it is not part of the record until that date and time comes when that particular case is scheduled to sit on the judicial office's desk and get reviewed. That is when “evidence” in the form of “testimony” from the officer, is entered into the record as it is reviewed by the judicial officer.

what overriding public interest can you think of to prevent access?

It is not about public interest... it simply defies logic! And with as legally versed as you are, I am flabbergasted that you would argue this one so much!

What law requires that the TBD be confidential?

The same law that doesn't force the prosecution to allow for full disclosure to the case!

Sure, the People have as much of a right to due process, but I'm not saying the officer can't see mine if he wants to! Hell, I even conceded that although the officer is technically a witness and not the prosecutor, he should be able to see mine purely as a member of the public!!

very generous of you Quirky... But the officer could care less to see your declaration. He's used to testifying first...

Of course, all of these arguments are purely academic, because the timelines involved in playing this peek-a-boo game leave very little room for judicial intervention. You can't get the court to compel the officer to turn it in before the due date, and unless you're willing to risk not submitting your TBD on time because you waited too long, the issue will probably become moot before a court can decide on it!

OK, if that's the only way to get you to stay off this topic, then so be it... Just pretend that the officer is always filing his at 4:29pm on the last day it is due!

Yes, shame on (lazy) me indeed. The RIGHT thing to do with that error, in retrospect, would have been to request a writ of mandate to compel dismissal between the TBD and the TDN --- the court exceeded its jurisdiction, because it had none given 40802, etc.

Wouldn't that have been rejected as fast as an actual appeal from a TBD though?

And no, being able to make the same argument at TDN is NOT "good enough" ... the prosecution has to prove all the requirements to rebut the speed trap presumption as part of its prima facie case--TBD or TDN--which they didn't. Or would you suggest that statute may not apply to the poor little TBDs either?

LOL... No, I wouldn't suggest that... Point is, you could not appeal from a TBD; you can only do so from a TDN!

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/05/scenes-las-metropolitan-traffic-court

Damn, the foul mouths on some people! Nice closer (last line) on that article!

Simply because its existence is neither required nor guaranteed at any pre-trial point.

No, I meant simply making it a requirement that the officer submit an affidavit -as they do in Washington State- and he'd be required to provide that under discovery instead of his notes. But now that I think about it, it would be riddled with errors and with him still required to appear and testify in court anyway, he'd be allowed to change/correct it... So there would be no benefit!

And lastly, you will allow me to BOLD the last few lines so that whoever might even begin to consider this idea, can think twice about knowing what to wish for!

First, this belief has only been a recent revelation. Such advice would be poor advice for most because, as I mentioned before:

• There are very limited situations in which you could exploit that knowledge, and you'd have to be fairly savvy to do so. Most people would just say something like "officer says I did X, I most emphatically did NOT", which, as we all agree, isn't worth the paper it's written on from the court's perspective.
• If you play this game, you run the very real risk of being late in your submission and defaulting.

[That Guy]

... public record ... sealed record... open records ... seal a record... sealing a court record

You obviously missed the 3 or 4 times in my post where I stated that it is not part of the record until it is reviewed by the court!

I think that this is one of the 4% that thatguy missed the mark.

You keep thinking that... All while you've made it so obvious, that in this post alone, you've missed the point... TWICE!