The Court Said Explain Yourself
Date: November 24, 2025
On November 19, 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an order in the HRO appeal directing Appellant to remedy fee-waiver and perfection issues in the underlying district-court case and to clarify the record surrounding payment, deadlines, and prior filings. In response, on November 24, 2025, Appellant filed an informal HRO brief addressing the Court's questions in detail. The brief was accepted by the Court six minutes after filing.
Summary in Context
The November 19 order arrived against a backdrop of conflicting notices, time-warped hearing dates, and fee-waiver decisions that did not match the procedural reality of the case. The district court had denied Appellant's fee waiver in a summary order that misstated household income and ignored disability-related financial constraints, while Judge Starr's late-mailed hearing notice created overlapping deadlines and an impossible calendar. From the Court of Appeals' perspective, the record needed to show clearly whether the appeal was perfected, whether fees had been paid, and whether Appellant understood and complied with the requirements.
Rather than treat the directive as a rebuke, Appellant treated it as what it was: guidance. The Court explained what it needed; the informal brief supplied it. The six-minute acceptance speaks for itself.
What the Informal Brief Did
The informal brief did not argue the full merits of the HRO appeal. Instead, it:
- Confirmed that the appellate filing fee had been paid in full and the appeal perfected;
- Explained how the district court's fee-waiver denial conflicted with the record and created confusion;
- Described the impact of Judge Starr's delayed-mailed hearing notice and overlapping deadlines; and
- Demonstrated that any procedural missteps were promptly corrected once clear instructions were given.
In other words, the brief answered the Court's specific questions: not “why the HRO is wrong” (that belongs in the merits briefing), but “what actually happened in the lower court, and is this appeal properly before us?”
Why the Timing Matters
The six-minute gap between filing and acceptance is more than a curiosity. It confirms that:
- The Court of Appeals had already identified the issues and was waiting for Appellant's clarification;
- The informal brief matched what the Court was expecting to see; and
- Once given a clear rule set and a stable point of contact, Appellant complied immediately and precisely.
This directly undercuts the recurring narrative in the lower court that Appellant is confused, resistant, or incapable of following directions. When the appellate court said, “Explain this,” Appellant did so within days, and the Court accepted her answer almost in real time.
Relationship to the Federal Case
For Strickland v. Ramsey County, et al., the informal brief serves a separate but related purpose. It documents, in a neutral appellate forum, the same structural problems raised in the federal Monell claim:
- Inaccurate fee-waiver determinations;
- Inconsistent use of addresses and notices;
- Hearing dates that are impossible to meet in practice; and
- A pattern of framing Appellant as noncompliant while withholding or distorting key information.
The Court of Appeals' willingness to accept the informal brief so quickly suggests that, at minimum, the confusion was not solely on Appellant's side. It also creates an appellate record showing that, when given accurate instructions, a disabled pro se litigant can and does meet the court's expectations.
What This Means Going Forward
The informal brief does not replace the formal merits briefing in the HRO appeal, nor does it resolve the underlying due-process and ADA issues. It does, however, stabilize the procedural ground under the appeal: the Court has its clarifications, the fee/perfection questions are answered, and the narrative of “noncompliance” is harder to maintain.
Going forward, Appellant will continue to treat appellate directives as collaborative course corrections rather than punishments. As federal and appellate courts review the record, the contrast will become clearer: when rules are applied transparently and communicated accessibly, Appellant follows them. When they are obscured, bent, or weaponized at the district-court level, litigation becomes a survival exercise instead of a legal process.