The Second District's marshal declared "Any records of" two whole request categories confidential and exempt without identifying a single record, put the name-search review behind $313 paid in advance, and then named the exemption she expects before reading anything.
Art. I, s. 24(a) and Rule 2.420(m)(2) require the marshal to find the records, decide each one, and state in writing the basis for each denial. The marshal's own email describes that method: review each message and "determine whether the message is confidential and exempt." Any charge is reasonable and tied to the cost actually incurred, and the exemption is decided after the review, not announced before it.
- Aug. 4, 2026: Answering Husband's July 20 request, Marshal Haynes gave two categories a blanket exemption, with no record identified. Under the same numbered category she attached two records, one a Teams message reading, in full, "Pro Se, Christopher Hanson has arrived". For the name search: "The charge for this time is $313.00. Upon receipt of payment, I will proceed with the review of these e-mail messages and attachments." N-149Read them: Marshal Haynes email, Aug. 4, 2026 (redacted) (link pending redacted copy)
- Aug. 20, 2026: "There are no responsive phone logs." She estimated at least four hours of review "Based on the volume of potentially responsive account records identified in the first query." N-149
- Sept. 29, 2026: "No waiver is authorized." "No document or record identifies how many potentially responsive records the first query identified." "Upon payment, I will ask them to update the first query." And: "I expect that any record withheld will be a confidential and exempt record under Rule 2440(c)(1). I will state the basis in writing when I have reviewed the records." N-149Asked on Aug. 18 and Sept. 25, 2026: does the Second District hold any record in the two categories it declared exempt, and under which subdivision is each one withheld?Read them: Marshal Haynes email, Sept. 29, 2026, with the Aug. 20 email below it (link pending redacted copy)
Marshal Jacinda (Jo) Haynes, custodian of the Second District's administrative records (every answer and the $313 charge). One request, one custodian, one email thread. Every duty here arises from Article I, section 24 and Rule 2.420 on this request alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. gives every person the right to inspect or copy public records, presumes them open, and places the burden of establishing an exemption on the entity asserting one. Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires the custodian to determine whether each requested record is exempt and to state in writing the basis for any denial. Rule 2.420(m)(3) sets fees at the amounts section 119.07 provides, which limits any special charge to a reasonable one based on the cost actually incurred.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
"Upon receipt of payment, I will proceed with the review": $313 before the court would look for Husband's records.
On August 4, 2026 the Second District's marshal answered a request pending since July 20. Two categories drew a blanket exemption as confidential and exempt. Four lines later the same email reads: "Or records 'referencing me by name.' I have attached two administrative records referencing you by name." One attachment is a Teams message reading, in full, "Pro Se, Christopher Hanson has arrived". On August 4 the telephone-records category drew only that the logs contain phone numbers and voicemails would be reviewed as part of the same process, with no existence statement and no denial; on August 20 the marshal answered it: "There are no responsive phone logs." Everything further was priced at $313.00, payable before any review would proceed. No privilege log, no list of what is withheld, and no description of the search have ever issued. [PARTIAL]
Article I, section 24 presumes records open and puts the burden of proving an exemption on the withholder; an unstated basis is an unmet burden, and a price is not a basis. A categorical exemption's test is whether it is applied categorically. Here the same officer, over the same category, on the same day, asserted the exemption and then attached two records of that description four lines later. Everything else was priced at $313, payable before any review would begin, for records nobody had yet said exist.
the appellate court's custodian asserted a blanket exemption over records "referencing me by name," attached two records of exactly that description in the same email, and put everything else behind $313 in advance
- The marshal's 8/4/26 email with both attachments, produced by the court itself.
- The 7/20/26 request and 7/21/26 acknowledgment in the quoted chain of the same PDF.
- On the telephone-records category, the same email neither produced a record, nor stated one exists, nor cited an exemption. Her 8/20/26 2:40 PM email answered the category: "There are no responsive phone logs." (quoted chain in the marshal's 9/29/26 email PDF, p. 3).
- Full quote: "Telephone records (call detail logs) contain phone numbers. Voicemails will be reviewed as part of the email process above."
- Full quote: "The charge for this time is $313.00. Upon receipt of payment, I will proceed with the review of these e-mail messages and attachments."
- The unattributed supplement denials at N-066 (denied without panel name or reason).
- Cross-links N-115 (the request chain) and N-138 (the IOP provision).