HL-008 · NOTICE CHRONOLOGY
The facial dates are verified; the actual notice and service chronology remains incomplete.
SOURCE HIERARCHY
Read the City rule first, then applicable Minnesota authority, the national constitutional standard, judicial interpretation, and the original record. The final layer states the supported application and its limits.
01
The current §170.10 contains written-notice and notification concepts relevant to extended exclusion and knowing reentry; the adopted rules describe longer exclusions under §170.10(e). The exact April 6, 2026 code version remains unverified. L-01 L-05 L-06
02
Minnesota Constitution article I, section 7 provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Whether a protected interest was deprived and what process was required remain issue-specific questions. L-03 MN-05
03
The Fourteenth Amendment’s notice standard asks whether notice was reasonably structured to reach the person and sufficiently clear to permit a response before or within the process appropriate to the situation. US-01 US-02
04
Mullane, Goss, and Loudermill explain notice and response principles. They do not establish that the April 6 face date was unlawful, when an internal decision occurred, or when Josh actually received notice. SC-01 SC-02
05
The native signed PDF shows an April 6 face/effective date and an April 8 completed electronic signature at 2:26:22 p.m. CDT. Actual transmission, delivery, and receipt remain unverified in this chronology. R-01 R-02
06
The two verified dates create a notice-chronology question. They do not prove unlawful backdating, an April 8 drafting date, an invalid internal decision, or the date Josh first received notice.
Saint Paul’s exclusion letter says the restriction was effective immediately on April 6, 2026. The available electronic-signature and delivery records indicate source-PDF creation, signing, and electronic transmission on April 8. This creates a two-day documentary gap between the stated effective date and the dated electronic notice record. This page does not declare the legal effect of that gap. R-01 R-02
| Top date | April 6, 2026 |
|---|---|
| Stated effective date | April 6, 2026 |
| Address notation | Address Unknown |
| Source PDF generated | April 8, 2026 at 2:16:37 p.m. CDT |
| Signing transaction created | April 8, 2026 at 2:17:39 p.m. CDT |
| Sent for signature | April 8, 2026 at 2:17:44 p.m. CDT |
| E-signature | April 8, 2026 at 2:26:22 p.m. CDT |
| Agreement completed | April 8, 2026 at 2:26:22 p.m. CDT |
| Electronic transmission / receipt in native text record | April 8, 2026 at 2:40 p.m. CDT |
| Physical mailing date | Unresolved in the reviewed public record |
| Term stated | 180 days, through October 3, 2026 |
The official Parks Rules webpage has displayed a “Last Edited” date of April 22, 2026, the same date printed on the rescission. That coincidence is a source-provenance lead, not proof that the rules changed because of the appeal. Possible explanations include a technical edit, accessibility edit, formatting change, hyperlink update, unrelated content change, or substantive change.
Records needed include CMS revision history, before/after HTML, timestamps, editor role, change notes, approval history, and whether the edit affected exclusion, filming, event, permit, duration, or Pig’s Eye language. The March 2025 Council-approved PDF remains the staged historical rule source unless a more authoritative April 2026 snapshot is obtained.
The current online §170.10 includes written-notice and notification concepts relevant to an extended exclusion and knowing reentry. The Council-adopted 2025 Parks Rules describe longer exclusions under §170.10(e). The exact April 6, 2026 codified version remains unverified, so this page does not represent the current online text as conclusively identical to the historical code. L-01 L-05 L-06
The two dates create a document-chronology question. They do not, by themselves, establish when the notice was drafted, when Josh was first informed, whether the letter was unlawfully backdated, or whether another authorized official had previously withdrawn consent.