The Second District refused even an in camera look at the April 4, 2025 video Judge Ayers offered as proof of her own conduct, twice in one-sentence orders naming no judge, then withheld as "confidential and exempt" any record of which judges decided.
Art. I, s. 24(a) presumes the Second District's own records open and puts the burden of any exemption on the court as custodian. Which judges ruled on a party's motion is a fact of the court's administration: under its own procedures "The clerk schedules and assigns cases." Asked who decided, the court names the judges, or identifies each record it withholds and states the specific basis, as Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires.
- Sept. 23, 2025: Husband moved to supplement the record with the video of the hearing where Judge Ayers said, "I will go get the camera footage and do it because I have not rolled my eyes at you," and with Judge DePaul's recusal document. In the alternative he asked the court to "conduct an in camera review of the evidence." N-042, N-066Read them: Motion to supplement, Sept. 23, 2025 (link pending redacted copy)
- Nov. 26, 2025 to Jan. 27, 2026: "BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's 'Motion to Supplement the Record with Video of 4/4/25 Hearing and Recusal Documents' is denied." No judge is named; the only signature is the clerk's certification. Husband moved for rehearing and a "Formal Written Order." Denied in one sentence, again naming no judge. On April 6, 2026 the court refused the video a third time, nine days before affirming. N-066, N-087Read them: Order, Nov. 26, 2025 (link pending redacted copy) · Order, Jan. 27, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
- May 14 to July 27, 2026: asked for the records identifying which judges issued these orders, Clerk Kuenzel answered for Chief Judge Lucas: those records "are confidential and exempt under rule 2.420(c)(1) unless filed as a part of the court record. There are no documents filed as part of the court record that reflect which judges participated in those orders." N-114, N-066Which judges decided the November 26, 2025 and January 27, 2026 orders?
The unnamed judges of the Second District (both orders). Clerk Mary Elizabeth Kuenzel (certified both orders; answered for Chief Judge Lucas). One motion, two orders, one records answer. Every duty here arises from Article I, section 24 and the court's own procedures on this motion alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. presumes judicial-branch records open and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian. Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires the custodian to state in writing the basis for each denial. The court's procedures place case assignment with the clerk.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
On November 26, 2025 the Second District denied the motion to supplement the record with the April 4, 2025 courthouse video, the video Judge Ayers herself invoked and then declined to pursue (N-042), and the recusal documents, naming no panel and giving no reasoning. Husband moved for rehearing of that order on December 1, 2025; the court denied rehearing on January 27, 2026, again naming no judge. Two more followed the same pattern, April 6 and May 12, 2026 (N-087, N-101). Asked in writing to identify who decided, the court refused: writing for Chief Judge Lucas on July 27, 2026, Clerk Kuenzel answered that no document reflects which judges participated, and any unfiled record is confidential under rule 2.420(c)(1). Chief Judge Lucas wrote the same on July 14, and Marshal Haynes again on August 4, 2026 (N-149); Clerk Kuenzel had denied the same category on June 3, 2026 (N-114). Four written refusals, and not one name on any of the orders. [DENIED]
Rule 9.200(f) lets a party supplement an incomplete record. Two orders from the same court kept the courthouse video out, and a third denied rehearing; none names a panel and none gives a reason. Asked in writing which judges decided, the court refused four times. Article I, section 24(a) puts the burden of proving an exemption on the custodian, and a bare rule citation carries none of it.
the appellate court kept the courthouse video out of the record in orders that name no judge and give no reason, and when asked who decided, answered that no such record is filed anywhere a party can reach
- As pleaded at complaint para. 30E.
- 11/26/25 order denying Appellant's "Motion to Supplement the Record with Video of 4/4/25 Hearing and Recusal Documents", filed 2D2025-1936 docket 041: issues "BY ORDER OF THE COURT", carries Kuenzel certification, names no judge.
- 1/27/26 order denying "Motion for Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc, for Clarification, for Formal Written Order, and/or Certification" under Rules 9.330/9.331, filed 2D2025-1936 docket 042; no judge named.
- Chief Judge Lucas's 7/14/26 letter and Marshal Haynes's 8/4/26 email.
- Clerk Kuenzel's 6/3/26 email on file as native PDF; her 7/27/26 response held only as a mailbox text capture, no page image, quoted at N-114 on that basis.
- Video's origin at N-042; withholding of it at N-053.
- Related decision points: N-115.
- Husband's December 1, 2025 motion for rehearing "of its November 26, 2025, order denying Appellant's 'Motion to Supplement the Record with Video of 4/4/25 Hearing and Recusal Documents'" (Filing 236689274), 2D2025-1936 docket 046.