I might as well describe what happened back in February when I filed. Let the reader be warned: even I find this boring.
- I shipped the required physical copies of the brief on Wednesday, February 19, 2014. (The date of the PDF is after 5 pm because I had to correct a hyperlink within the electronic copy. This has no bearing on the printed copy.)
- As of Saturday, February 22, I confirmed via the USPS website that the brief had been delivered the day before.
- I sat down to send one electronic copy of the brief as a PDF to the Judicial Council Secretary as well as identified interested parties and persons as of January 2014. (This was based on a written communication from the Judicial Council Secretary.) As I went through this communication, it said that the copy for the Judicial Council should be in Word or Wordperfect format. I didn’t think sending the brief as a PDF would have been a big deal — I had read the Rules of Practice and Procedure updated 10-25-2013 through page 5 — but I figured I’d send it to the Judicial Council as a Word document anyway. And so I removed the Judicial Council Secretary from this e-mail.
- I clicked send. Nothing happened for a long time. (I do remember one of those “spinning” icons while I waited for the website to indicate something.) Finally, the website put me back in my inbox. No warning or error message. I assumed that the message had been sent.
- I went ahead and sent a message to the Judicial Council Secretary with my brief as a .doc attachment. I also certified that I had just sent a copy to all interested parties and persons. I sent this message.
- That’s where things stood as of March 28. As of that morning, there were only two messages in my “Sent” mail for February 22. (The other message was unrelated to the Judicial Council.)
- Not only did I confirm that my message of March 28 showed up in my Sent folder, but I also received an Auto Reply from another amicus curiae.
That’s my boring account of what happened.
My use of “certify” in my e-mail of March 28 was in keeping with Rule V. E. of the Rules of Practice and Procedure Revised July 2012. It is arguable whether I constitute an “interested party”; however, this is the usage I intended.
In other words: my usage of “certify” or “certification” in the March 28 e-mail is not relevant to any claims made in my brief proper.