I. Introduction and Summary of Argument

Florida's Access Security Matrix, as adopted in Administrative Order AOSC24-65, creates an unconstitutional two-tiered system of justice that conditions access to court records on a litigant's ability to afford legal representation. This wealth-based discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, Florida's constitutional guarantee of access to courts, and established Supreme Court precedent prohibiting financial barriers to justice.

For domestic violence injunction cases classified as "before service," the Matrix assigns drastically different access levels based solely on whether the respondent has retained counsel:

User Role	Access Level	Actual Access Granted
User Role 3: Attorneys of Record	Level B	"All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, F.S., or sealed by court order" (Full access to all case documents, allegations, and filings)
User Role 4: Parties (Pro Se)	Level G	"Case number only" (No access to allegations, documents, or any substantive information)

Making matters worse, public records requests submitted to all 67 Florida counties reveal starkly inconsistent application of law across the state. A respondent's ability to access prior case files—and thus to defend against serial false accusations—depends entirely on which county they happen to reside in. Some counties grant access to dismissed cases; others deny access entirely, with one clerk going so far as to assert that unserved respondents are not "parties" to cases in which they are the accused. This geographic lottery of constitutional rights violates equal protection and demonstrates that the Matrix provides no clear guidance, forcing each clerk's office to invent its own interpretation of when and whether respondents may access allegations made against them in court.

This discriminatory access regime is compounded by widespread clerk practices that lack statutory authority: a large percentage of Florida counties distribute "Waiver of Return Hearing" forms that directly contradict Florida Statute § 741.30(4)'s mandatory language requiring courts to "set a hearing." These unauthorized forms enable serial abuse of the injunction process while ensuring that respondents—denied access to prior case files—cannot detect patterns of malicious prosecution or establish res judicata defenses.

II. Statement of Facts

A. The Access Security Matrix Framework

The Florida Supreme Court adopted the current Access Security Matrix in Administrative Order AOSC24-65, effective September 16, 2024. The Matrix establishes differentiated levels of electronic access to court records based on user roles and case types.

The stated purpose of restricted access for domestic violence injunctions "before service" is to protect the petitioner's safety during the service process—to prevent respondents from being tipped off before law enforcement can effectuate service of the temporary injunction. See Fla. Stat. § 119.071(2)(j) (creating public records exemption for injunction petitions until respondent is served).

B. Wealth-Based Access Disparity

Under the current Matrix, for "DR Violence Injunctions (all) Before Service," access is allocated as follows:

1. Attorneys of Record (User Role 3): Receive Level B access, granting them the ability to view all case documents, allegations, petitioner statements, supporting evidence, and court filings—everything except records expunged or sealed under Chapter 943 or sealed by specific court order.

2. Parties (User Role 4): Receive Level G access, granting them only the case number. They cannot view what has been alleged against them, cannot review petitioner statements for inconsistencies, cannot identify patterns of abuse, and cannot access any substantive information about their own case.

If the case is dismissed without service—whether because the judge denies the petition, the petitioner voluntarily dismisses, or the petitioner uses an unauthorized "waiver of return hearing" form—the respondent remains perpetually unable to access information about allegations made against them in a court of law.

C. Unauthorized "Waiver of Return Hearing" Forms

Public records requests submitted to Florida's 67 counties have identified a large percentage of counties distributing forms that allow petitioners to waive the statutorily mandated return hearing. Among the documented examples:

These forms contradict the clear statutory mandate:

"Shall" is mandatory language. The statute does not say "shall set a hearing if the petitioner is going to win" or "shall set a hearing unless the petitioner waives it." The hearing exists to protect the due process rights of BOTH parties, including the respondent's right to confront their accuser. Clerks lack authority to create forms that override statutory mandates.

D. Serial Abuse Enabled by Current System

The combination of the Matrix's discriminatory access rules and unauthorized waiver forms creates a system ripe for abuse:

1. Petitioner files injunction petition with false or exaggerated allegations.

2. Judge denies temporary relief, recognizing the weakness of the allegations.

3. Petitioner uses "waiver" form to dismiss case without serving respondent or attending hearing.

4. Case is dismissed; respondent is never served and never learns of the petition.

5. Clerk treats dismissed case as perpetually "confidential" under pre-service exemption.

6. Petitioner files new petition with the same, new or exaggerated allegations, knowing respondent has no access to prior filings to establish pattern or impeach credibility.

7. New petition is potentially assigned to a different judge who has no knowledge of the prior denied petition or has an ulterior incentive to maximize the number of injunctions issued.

8. Respondent—whether represented or pro se—is denied access to the case file.

9. If pro se, respondent cannot access prior allegations. If represented, attorney can access under Level B, but this creates wealth-based discrimination.

This cycle can repeat indefinitely. The respondent subject to serial false accusations cannot establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, abuse of process, or use prior inconsistent statements for impeachment—unless they can afford an attorney who can access Level B records.

III. Legal Argument

A. The Matrix Violates Equal Protection Under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; see also Art. I, § 2, Fla. Const. Wealth-based classifications that affect fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and are unconstitutional unless narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. See M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 120 (1996).

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that conditioning access to courts on ability to pay violates equal protection:

1. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956): Illinois could not deny appellate review to indigent defendants who could not afford trial transcripts. "There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has."

2. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996): Mississippi could not condition a mother's right to appeal termination of parental rights on her ability to pay for record preparation fees.

Here, the Matrix creates an even more direct form of wealth-based discrimination: it grants attorneys Level B access to case files while denying pro se parties any meaningful access (Level G). The attorney's access IS the party's access—attorneys work for and on behalf of their clients. Yet the Matrix treats attorney access as permissible while party access is prohibited, solely because parties who can afford counsel gain the benefit of Level B access through their attorneys.

This makes no sense and serves no legitimate purpose. If the concern is protecting petitioner identity before service, allowing attorneys to access that information creates the identical risk as allowing parties to access it. The only difference is that one requires payment for legal representation and one does not.

B. The Matrix Violates Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution

The Due Process Clause guarantees that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. Fundamental to due process is the right to know the accusations against you and to defend against those accusations. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948) (due process requires notice of charges and opportunity to be heard).

When a petitioner files multiple injunction petitions against the same respondent—serially dismissing those denied ex parte relief—the respondent is systematically deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Without access to prior petitions, the respondent cannot:

1. Establish res judicata or collateral estoppel based on prior adjudications in their favor;

2. Impeach the petitioner with prior inconsistent statements;

3. Demonstrate a pattern of abuse of process;

4. Present evidence that allegations have been repeatedly rejected by the court.

These are fundamental defense rights. The Matrix's differential access regime means these rights are available to wealthy respondents who can hire attorneys (who get Level B access), but denied to indigent respondents who must proceed pro se (who get only Level G access). Due process cannot be conditioned on wealth.

C. Secret Proceedings Violate Fundamental American Constitutional Principles and Parallel Historical Abuses

The current system creates functionally secret judicial proceedings—a practice fundamentally at odds with American constitutional traditions and the core principles of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." While injunction proceedings are technically civil, they deprive respondents of fundamental constitutional rights comparable to criminal sanctions: loss of Second Amendment rights, restrictions on movement and association, and creation of permanent public records affecting employment and reputation. The protections against secret proceedings must apply with equal force.

Historical Rejection of Secret Courts: The Star Chamber

American jurisprudence's rejection of secret proceedings traces directly to abuses by the English Court of Star Chamber (1487-1641), which conducted proceedings in secret, denied defendants the right to confront witnesses, and applied arbitrary standards without transparency. The Star Chamber became synonymous with tyranny and oppression, leading Parliament to abolish it in 1641. Its abuses became a foundational reason the American colonies insisted on public trials and due process protections in the Constitution.

The 1930s-1940s German Judicial System: A Warning From History

The dangers of secret judicial proceedings were demonstrated with horrifying clarity in 1930s Germany, where following the Reichstag Fire Decree of February 28, 1933, the regime established the Sondergerichte (Special Courts)—a parallel judicial system designed to expedite proceedings against political opponents and disfavored groups.

The Sondergerichte shared disturbing characteristics:

1. Operated largely in secret or with severely restricted public access;

2. Denied defendants access to evidence and prior allegations against them;

3. Expedited proceedings without adequate time for defense preparation;

4. Created a two-tiered justice system where outcomes depended on the defendant's status and resources;

5. Enabled serial accusations without accountability or transparency.

By 1939, there were 74 Sondergerichte throughout Germany and occupied territories. These courts processed hundreds of thousands of cases with minimal due process protections. The wealthy or well-connected could sometimes access information and legal representation denied to ordinary citizens. Prior adjudications were hidden from defendants, preventing them from establishing patterns or challenging serial accusations.

The Volksgerichtshof (People's Court), established in 1934, further exemplified the abuse of judicial secrecy, conducting over 5,000 political trials between 1934 and 1945 with predetermined outcomes and functionally secret evidentiary proceedings. Defendants frequently had no meaningful access to the evidence against them until the proceedings were already underway.

Florida's Current System Mirrors These Historical Dangers

Florida's injunction system—combining the Matrix's discriminatory access rules with unauthorized waiver forms—creates functionally secret proceedings that share disturbing parallels with these historical abuses:

1. Secret Accusations: Respondents are permanently denied access to allegations made against them when petitions are dismissed without service, creating a system where accusations exist in court records but are hidden from the accused;

2. Hidden Prior Adjudications: Clerks conceal evidence that petitioners have previously filed similar accusations that were denied or dismissed, preventing respondents from establishing patterns of abuse or impeaching credibility;

3. Wealth-Based Access Disparity: Represented parties gain full access through their attorneys (Level B access to all documents and allegations); pro se parties receive nothing (Level G—case number only)—creating the same two-tiered system seen in 1930s Germany where wealth determined access to justice;

4. Elimination of Judicial Oversight: Unauthorized "waiver" forms allow cases to be dismissed without hearings, preventing any public scrutiny or judicial review of whether accusations had merit;

5. Serial Abuse Without Accountability: Petitioners can file repeatedly against the same respondent, knowing prior filings are hidden and the respondent cannot establish patterns or raise res judicata defenses;

6. Permanent Stigma Without Transparency: Even when completely vindicated—when petitions are denied or dismissed—respondents have no access to the very records that affect their constitutional rights, reputation, and ability to defend against future accusations.

The Supreme Court recognized the fundamental importance of public proceedings in In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270 (1948):

Florida's system employs courts as potential instruments of persecution by:

1. Allowing accusations to be made in secret judicial filings that remain permanently hidden from the accused;

2. Concealing exculpatory evidence (prior denied or dismissed petitions involving the same parties);

3. Creating wealth-based access disparities where constitutional rights depend on ability to afford legal representation;

4. Denying respondents the ability to confront their accusers or even know the full scope of accusations;

5. Enabling serial filings without any mechanism for respondents to expose patterns or hold petitioners accountable.

This is precisely what the Sixth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and centuries of Anglo-American legal tradition were designed to prevent. When courts operate in secret, when evidence is hidden from the accused, when wealth determines access to justice, the system ceases to serve justice and becomes a tool of oppression.

The fact that these proceedings occur in the name of "protection" does not justify abandoning fundamental constitutional principles. History demonstrates—from the Star Chamber to the Sondergerichte—that secret courts inevitably become instruments of abuse. When judicial proceedings lack transparency, when the accused cannot access evidence, when wealth determines who gets justice and who gets persecution, the result is always the same: tyranny masquerading as law.

The American constitutional system was specifically designed to prevent this. Florida's current practices represent a regression to the very forms of judicial abuse that our Constitution was written to prohibit. If similar proceedings were proposed in any other context—secret criminal trials where the poor have no access to evidence but the wealthy do—they would be immediately recognized as unconstitutional. The fact that these violations occur under the banner of domestic violence protection does not make them any less egregious or any more constitutionally permissible.

D. The Matrix Violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act Through Disparate Impact on Protected Classes

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Florida courts and clerk offices receive millions of dollars annually in federal VAWA funding, making them subject to Title VI's non-discrimination requirements.

The Supreme Court has recognized that Title VI prohibits not only intentional discrimination but also policies that have a disparate impact on protected classes. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974); Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 463 U.S. 582 (1983). Federal regulations implementing Title VI explicitly prohibit practices that have "the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin." 28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).

The Matrix's wealth-based access restrictions create unlawful disparate impact across both race and sex:

1. Disparate Impact on Racial Minorities: African Americans, Latinos, and other racial minorities are disproportionately represented among indigent populations unable to afford legal representation. According to U.S. Census data, poverty rates for Black Americans (19.5%) and Hispanic Americans (17.1%) substantially exceed those of white Americans (8.2%). By conditioning access to court records on ability to afford attorneys, the Matrix systematically denies access to racial minorities at higher rates than white respondents.

2. Disparate Impact on Women: Women comprise the majority of recipients of domestic violence-related injunctions, but they also face higher poverty rates and lower incomes than men. Single mothers—who are frequently both petitioners in one case and respondents in counter-petitions or subsequent filings—face particular disadvantage. A woman who cannot afford an attorney to access prior allegations against her is denied the same defensive tools available to wealthy respondents, regardless of the merits of the accusations.

3. Intersection with Federal Funding: The disparate impact is particularly egregious because it occurs within a system funded specifically to address violence against women. VAWA funding is intended to protect victims, not to create a two-tiered justice system where poor women and racial minorities are denied access to exculpatory evidence while wealthy respondents get full access through their attorneys.

Courts have consistently held that facially neutral policies producing disparate impact on protected classes violate Title VI when implemented in federally funded programs. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (recognizing disparate impact regulations under Title VI); Elston v. Talladega County Bd. of Educ., 997 F.2d 1394 (11th Cir. 1993).

Here, the Matrix is facially neutral—it applies the same access levels to all pro se parties and all attorneys. But its practical effect is to deny access disproportionately to racial minorities and women who cannot afford legal representation. When a Black respondent or a Latina mother proceeding pro se is limited to "case number only" (Level G) while a wealthy white respondent's attorney gets full case file access (Level B), the policy produces discriminatory outcomes based on race and economic status in a federally funded court system.

The federal government cannot subsidize discrimination. By providing VAWA funding to Florida courts and clerks who implement the Matrix's discriminatory access regime, the federal government is financing a system that systematically disadvantages racial minorities and women in violation of Title VI.

E. The Matrix Violates Florida's Constitutional Guarantee of Access to Courts

Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution provides: "The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay."

The Florida Supreme Court has held that this provision guarantees meaningful access to courts. See Kluger v. White, 281 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1973). Pro se litigants are entitled to the same access to justice as represented parties.

The Matrix systematically disadvantages pro se respondents in injunction proceedings. While represented respondents benefit from their attorneys' Level B access to prior case files, pro se respondents receive only a case number. This disparity directly undermines the constitutional guarantee that courts shall be "open to every person" and that justice shall be administered "without sale."

F. The Matrix's Treatment of Dismissed Cases is Illogical and Contradicts the Statutory Purpose

The public records exemption in Florida Statute § 119.071(2)(j) was designed to protect petitioner's safety until service can be accomplished. Once service is no longer pending—because the case was dismissed—the protective purpose no longer exists. There is no one to serve, no pending injunction to enforce, and no safety concern to address.

Yet clerks across Florida continue to apply the pre-service confidentiality rules to dismissed cases indefinitely. This application is particularly illogical when compared to the Matrix's treatment of sealed cases:

Case Type	Party Access Level	Reasoning
Sealed by Court Order	Level B (case-by-case basis)	Parties can access their own sealed cases
Dismissed Pre-Service DV Injunction	Level G (case number only)	Clerk interpretation of expired protective exemption

This makes no sense. A case sealed by court order—which involves an affirmative judicial determination that the case should be hidden—allows parties more access than a case dismissed before service, where no such determination was made and the protective purpose of the statute no longer exists.

G. The Matrix Contradicts the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records

The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records (adopted alongside the Matrix) state at page 12 that parties have a fundamental right to access their own case files:

The Matrix's application of Level G access (case number only) to parties in dismissed pre-service cases directly contradicts this standard. The respondent IS a party to the case—their name appears on the petition, allegations have been made against them in court, and the court has adjudicated those allegations. The Standards contemplate party access to "all records in the party's case," yet the Matrix denies respondents access to cases where they are the accused party.

H. Clerks Lack Authority to Create Forms That Override Statutory Mandates

Florida Statute § 741.30(4) mandates: "Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time." This is not discretionary language. "Shall" is mandatory. See Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. McKaughan, 668 So. 2d 974, 975 (Fla. 1995) ("'Shall' is mandatory language.").

Clerks of court are ministerial officers who lack authority to create forms that contradict or override statutory requirements. See Smith v. Dep't of Ins., 507 So. 2d 1080, 1086 (Fla. 1987). Yet a large percentage of Florida counties distribute "Waiver of Return Hearing" forms that allow petitioners to circumvent the statutory mandate that courts "shall set a hearing."

No court order, administrative order, Florida Supreme Court rule, or statute authorizes this practice. The forms exist solely because clerks created them, and their use directly undermines:

1. The statutory mandate for hearings;

2. The respondent's due process right to confront their accuser;

3. The court's ability to assess credibility and deter frivolous filings.

I. Inconsistent Application of Law Across Florida Counties Violates Equal Protection and Due Process

Public records requests submitted to all 67 Florida counties reveal starkly inconsistent interpretations and applications of the Matrix and applicable statutes. Each county clerk's office appears to have adopted its own interpretation of when and whether respondents may access prior case files, creating a patchwork system where constitutional rights depend on geographic location.

1. Clay County: Interprets the Matrix to allow respondents access to prior dismissed cases, but only after the case has been closed and dispositioned.

2. Hamilton County: Grants respondents access to prior case files upon proof of identity, with redactions of addresses and phone numbers for safety.

3. Alachua County: Denies respondent access entirely, asserting that unserved respondents are not "parties" to the case and therefore have no access rights whatsoever.

4. Pinellas County: Explicitly states in official procedures manual that "the respondent cannot get copies of the injunction" if denied without a return hearing, and "the case remains in a locked status."

This inconsistency is constitutionally intolerable. A respondent's ability to access allegations made against them in court—and to prepare defenses based on prior adjudications—cannot depend on which county they happen to reside in. Equal protection demands uniform application of law. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000) (inconsistent standards violate equal protection).

More fundamentally, this inconsistency exposes that the Matrix provides no clear guidance on dismissed cases. Clerks are left to invent their own interpretations, some of which (like Alachua's position that unserved respondents are not "parties") are legally absurd. A person accused in a court filing IS a party to that proceeding. The fact that service was never completed does not erase their status as the subject of judicial allegations.

J. Failure to Notify Respondents of Prior Adjudications Violates Brady v. Maryland

When a petitioner files a new injunction petition against a respondent, and the clerk's office possesses records showing that the same petitioner previously filed similar allegations that were denied or dismissed, that information is exculpatory evidence. The respondent has a constitutional right to know that:

1. The same petitioner has filed against them before;

2. Those prior allegations were denied by a court or voluntarily dismissed;

3. The petitioner may be engaged in a pattern of abuse of process.

Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the government has an affirmative obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the accused. While Brady applies directly to criminal prosecutions, its principles extend to civil proceedings affecting fundamental rights. See Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 442 (1960) (due process in civil proceedings requires disclosure where fundamental fairness demands it).

Injunction proceedings deprive respondents of fundamental constitutional rights: the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and property rights. When clerks possess evidence that the petitioner has previously made similar accusations that were rejected, and clerks affirmatively conceal that information from the respondent, they deprive the respondent of the ability to present a complete defense.

If respondents are not proactively notified of prior adjudications—or even voluntarily dismissed allegations from the same petitioner—they cannot:

1. Impeach the petitioner's credibility with prior inconsistent statements;

2. Establish res judicata or collateral estoppel;

3. Demonstrate a pattern of abuse sufficient to warrant sanctions or attorney's fees;

4. Alert the court that it is being used as a weapon in ongoing harassment.

The current system—where clerks hide prior case files and judges potentially have no knowledge of prior denied petitions involving the same parties—violates basic principles of fairness and due process.

K. Neither Clerks Nor Courts Have Authority to Create Law or Bypass Legislative Mandates

Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides: "The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein."

The Legislature enacts laws. The judiciary interprets and applies laws. Clerks of court are ministerial officers who administer the courts. Neither clerks nor judges have authority to create new legal mechanisms that bypass clear statutory language or invent procedures not contemplated by the Legislature.

Florida Statute § 741.30(4) states: "Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time." This is mandatory legislative language. No clerk has authority to create a "Waiver of Return Hearing" form that allows parties to circumvent this mandate. No court has authority to approve such a practice absent specific legislative authorization.

Similarly, Florida Statute § 119.071(2)(j) creates a public records exemption for injunction petitions "until the respondent is served." The statute does not say "until the respondent is served or the case is dismissed, whichever occurs later." The exemption has a clear termination point: service. Once service is no longer pending because the case was dismissed, the exemption no longer applies. Clerks lack authority to extend the exemption indefinitely based on their own policy preferences.

If the Legislature determines that secret injunction proceedings are necessary to protect petitioner safety, the Legislature is free to enact the appropriate statutory framework. Such a framework would need to balance petitioner safety against respondents' due process rights, possibly by:

1. Requiring automatic sealing of dismissed cases with unsealing available upon respondent motion;

2. Creating a mechanism for respondents to access redacted versions of prior allegations;

3. Mandating judicial review before extending confidentiality beyond the statutory service exemption;

4. Establishing statewide uniform standards rather than leaving interpretation to individual clerk discretion.

But absent such legislative action, neither clerks nor courts may create their own extralegal systems. The current practice—where each clerk invents their own interpretation, some deny access entirely, some grant it with conditions, and unauthorized "waiver" forms proliferate—represents an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority.

The separation of powers exists to prevent exactly this type of ad hoc policymaking by unelected officials. If secret proceedings are deemed necessary, the people's elected representatives in the Legislature must make that determination and establish the procedural safeguards to ensure due process is preserved.

L. Financial Conflicts of Interest: Federal Funding Creates Structural Bias Toward Maximizing Injunctions

Both clerks of court and the judiciary have direct financial interests in maximizing the number of injunctions issued. This structural conflict of interest violates due process and undermines the appearance of fairness essential to judicial proceedings.

Florida courts, clerks, and law enforcement agencies receive millions of dollars annually in federal funding through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), specifically the STOP (Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program. The U.S. Department of Justice awards over $690 million annually in VAWA funding to states and territories.

This federal funding structure creates perverse incentives that directly compromise the neutrality of injunction proceedings:

1. Courts receive 5% of state STOP grant allocations, including clerk of court offices and other judicial entities. This creates a direct financial interest in processing high volumes of injunction petitions and maintaining statistics that justify continued funding.

2. Grant funding prioritizes jurisdictions that establish data collection systems for tracking protection orders, violations, and prosecutions. These federally incentivized databases collect and retain sensitive information—including firearms ownership data gathered from petitions and respondent affidavits—even when the respondent is vindicated and the petition is denied.

3. Performance metrics require grantees to report statistics on the number of protection orders issued, creating institutional pressure to maintain high approval rates to demonstrate "effectiveness" and justify continued funding.

4. Specialized court positions are funded based on jurisdictions where "a significant number of protection orders are granted." Judicial employment and resources are directly tied to volume of injunctions issued, not to fairness or accuracy of adjudication.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that financial interests in the outcome of proceedings violate due process. In Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972), the Court held that a mayor who adjudicated traffic violations while the village received substantial revenue from fines had an unconstitutional conflict of interest. The Court stated: "The test is whether the situation is one 'which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the state and the accused.'" Id. at 60.

Here, the conflict is far more direct and substantial than in Ward:

1. Courts and clerks receive funding directly tied to injunction statistics;

2. Judicial positions and resources depend on maintaining "significant numbers" of granted orders;

3. Performance is measured by volume of orders issued, not fairness of process;

4. The system incentivizes rubber-stamping petitions and concealing exculpatory evidence (prior denials) that would undermine future approvals.

When combined with the Matrix's discriminatory access rules and unauthorized waiver forms, this financial incentive structure creates a perfect storm for constitutional violations:

1. Courts have financial incentives to approve injunctions;

2. Clerks hide prior denied petitions to prevent respondents from establishing patterns;

3. Waiver forms allow petitioners to dismiss denied cases without hearings, preventing judicial review;

4. New petitions are assigned to different judges with no knowledge of prior denials;

5. Pro se respondents have no access to prior allegations to impeach or establish res judicata;

6. Represented respondents get access only if they can afford attorneys.

Department of Justice audits have revealed that 72.3% of VAWA fund recipients were found "Generally Non-Compliant," uncovering $14.7 million in unallowable or unsupported costs. Despite widespread waste, fraud, and abuse, the funding continues because it serves the financial interests of courts, clerks, and law enforcement—regardless of whether it serves justice.

When judicial institutions receive federal money tied to the number of protective orders they issue, they have a financial incentive to rubber-stamp petitions, conceal exculpatory evidence, and violate respondents' constitutional rights. This is not justice—it is a federally funded revenue scheme that systematically denies due process to the poorest and most vulnerable respondents who cannot afford attorneys to access the very records being hidden from them.

IV. Relief Requested

The Access Governance Board of the Florida Courts Technology Commission should take the following actions:

1. Amend the Access Security Matrix to grant pro se parties the same access level as their attorneys would receive (Level B) for cases where they are a named party, eliminating wealth-based discrimination in access to court records.

2. Clarify that dismissed cases are not subject to perpetual confidentiality and that once a case is dismissed without service, the protective purpose of the pre-service exemption no longer applies, and parties have a right to access case files in which they were the accused.

3. Direct clerks to cease distribution of unauthorized "Waiver of Return Hearing" forms that contradict the mandatory language of Florida Statute § 741.30(4) and undermine respondents' due process rights.

4. Issue guidance clarifying that the statutory exemption in § 119.071(2)(j) was designed to protect petitioner's safety until service, not to hide accusations from respondents indefinitely, and that weaponizing this protective statute against the people it was meant to protect is inconsistent with its purpose.

5. Require all clerks of court to serve respondents with copies of all prior unserved petitions and orders involving the same petitioner at the time they serve any notice of hearing or temporary injunction. This ensures respondents receive exculpatory evidence of prior denied or dismissed allegations, enabling them to impeach credibility, establish patterns of abuse, and assert res judicata defenses as required by Brady v. Maryland and fundamental due process principles.

V. Conclusion

Florida's Access Security Matrix creates unconstitutional wealth-based discrimination by granting attorneys Level B access to case files while denying pro se parties any meaningful access. This violates equal protection, due process, and Florida's constitutional guarantee of access to courts.

The attorney works for the party. The attorney's knowledge is the party's knowledge. There is no legitimate reason to allow information to be accessed by someone acting on behalf of a party while hiding that same information from the party themselves based solely on ability to pay for representation.

Combined with unauthorized clerk practices distributing "waiver" forms that contradict statutory mandates, the current system enables serial abuse of the injunction process while ensuring that indigent respondents—those least able to defend themselves—are kept perpetually in the dark about accusations made against them in court.

This is not justice. This is wealth-based discrimination masquerading as court security policy.

The Access Governance Board has the authority and responsibility to correct these constitutional violations. The requested relief is modest, legally sound, and necessary to ensure that Florida's courts remain open to every person—not just those who can afford attorneys.

---

VI. Supporting Evidence and Documentation

---

VII. Additional Legal Arguments: Administrative Action and Mandamus Relief

The violations documented above stem from administrative action—specifically, the adoption and distribution of the Access Security Matrix through Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order AOSC24-65. This section outlines additional legal arguments demonstrating why these violations are subject to mandamus relief and why the current system creates concrete, measurable harm.

A. The Matrix is Administrative Policy, Not Adjudicatory Action

The Access Security Matrix is a ministerial policy document that establishes standardized access levels across Florida's court system. Unlike judicial rulings that resolve individual disputes, the Matrix sets uniform administrative rules governing who may access what information. The State Courts Administrator and the Florida Courts Technology Commission—not individual judges—create, maintain, and distribute this policy framework to county clerks statewide.

When a ministerial duty is required by constitutional mandates—such as providing equal protection, due process, and access to courts—public officers have no discretion to implement policies that violate these requirements. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with non-discretionary constitutional obligations. See State ex rel. Evans v. Chappel, 308 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975) (mandamus lies to compel performance of ministerial duty).

B. Misapplication of Public Records Exemptions

County clerks across Florida are misapplying Florida Statute § 119.071(2)(j) to deny party access to their own case files. The statute creates a public records exemption—protecting confidential information from disclosure to the public—not a mechanism to deny parties access to cases in which they are named respondents.

1. Public Records Exemptions Apply to the Public, Not Parties: Chapter 119 exemptions govern what the public may access under the Public Records Act. These exemptions do not authorize denying parties access to their own cases. A respondent named in a petition IS a party to that proceeding, even if service was never completed.

2. The Exemption Has a Clear Termination Point: Florida Statute § 119.071(2)(j) makes injunction petitions confidential "until the respondent is served." Once service is no longer pending because the case was dismissed, the protective purpose no longer exists, and the exemption's temporal limitation has been satisfied.

3. Clerks Extend Exemptions Beyond Statutory Language: No statute authorizes clerks to extend confidentiality indefinitely after a case is dismissed. Clerks lack authority to rewrite Chapter 119 to create perpetual exemptions not contemplated by the Legislature.

C. Structural Ex Parte Communications

The Matrix creates a structural ex parte communication problem in subsequent proceedings involving the same parties. When courts, attorneys of record, and clerks all have Level B or higher access to prior case files while pro se respondents are limited to Level G (case number only), the judicial system itself becomes asymmetrically informed.

1. Courts Possess Material Evidence Concealed from the Accused: Trial judges have Level J access (complete access to all case information). When a subsequent petition is filed, the court may access prior case files—including prior denials, dismissals, and adjudications—while the respondent has no knowledge such files exist.

2. Petitioner's Counsel Gains Strategic Advantage: Attorneys of record receive Level B access. When representing a petitioner filing multiple petitions, counsel can access all prior filings while the unrepresented respondent cannot. This creates an information asymmetry that fundamentally undermines adversarial fairness.

3. Brady Violation in Quasi-Criminal Civil Proceedings: When the State—through its unified judicial apparatus including courts and clerks—possesses exculpatory evidence (prior denials, prior dismissals, proof of serial filing patterns) and withholds this information from the accused while adjudicating proceedings that deprive fundamental rights, the system violates the principles established in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

As the Supreme Court explained in Brady: "society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials are fair." Id. at 87. While injunction proceedings are technically civil, they deprive respondents of Second Amendment rights, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and create permanent stigmatizing public records. The Brady principle—that the State cannot suppress material exculpatory evidence—applies with equal force when fundamental rights are at stake.

D. The Matrix Contradicts Its Own Standards

The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records, adopted alongside the Matrix, state that parties have a fundamental right to access their own case files:

Yet the Matrix assigns Level G access (case number only) to pro se parties in dismissed pre-service injunction cases—direct parties to the proceedings. This internal contradiction demonstrates that the Matrix's implementation violates its own foundational principles.

The respondent IS a party: their name appears on the petition, allegations have been made against them in a court of law, and the court has adjudicated those allegations. The Matrix's denial of access contradicts the Standards' recognition that parties have access rights to "all records in the party's case."

E. Geographic Lottery of Constitutional Rights

Public records responses from Florida's 67 counties demonstrate that constitutional rights under the current system depend entirely on which county a respondent resides in:

1. Hamilton County: Grants respondents access to prior dismissed cases upon proof of identity, with limited redactions of addresses and phone numbers for safety purposes.

2. Clay County: Allows access to prior dismissed cases only after the case has been closed and dispositioned, interpreting the Matrix to permit eventual access.

3. Alachua County: Denies access entirely, asserting in official responses that unserved respondents are not "parties" with access rights—a legally indefensible position given that respondents are named parties in the very petitions filed against them.

4. Pinellas County: Official DV Manual states explicitly that if an injunction is denied without a return hearing, "the respondent cannot get copies of the injunction. The case remains in a locked status."

This inconsistency violates equal protection. As the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000), when fundamental rights are affected, inconsistent standards and procedures across jurisdictions violate equal protection guarantees. A person's ability to access exculpatory evidence and defend against accusations cannot depend on the geographic accident of which county courthouse they must appear in.

F. Unauthorized Forms Override Statutory Mandates

A significant percentage of Florida counties distribute "Waiver of Return Hearing" forms created by clerk offices without statutory authorization, Florida Supreme Court approval, or rule-making authority. These forms directly contradict Florida Statute § 741.30(4), which mandates: "Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time."

"Shall" is mandatory language. See Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. McKaughan, 668 So. 2d 974, 975 (Fla. 1995). The statute does not provide exceptions for petitioner waiver, does not authorize clerks to create forms bypassing the hearing requirement, and does not contemplate secret proceedings where respondents are never served despite allegations being filed in court.

Clerks of court are ministerial officers performing duties "in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority." § 112.312(17), Fla. Stat. Clerks lack authority to create forms that override legislative mandates or contradict statutory requirements.

Moreover, these forms are not implemented uniformly across the state. Some counties distribute them; others do not. Some counties require judges to approve waivers; others allow clerk personnel to process them administratively. This patchwork implementation underscores that the forms exist outside any coherent legal framework and result from ad hoc clerk practices rather than judicial or legislative directive.

G. The Separation of Powers Violation

Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution mandates separation of powers: "The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein."

Neither clerks nor courts may create extralegal mechanisms that bypass clear statutory language or invent procedures not authorized by the Legislature:

1. Legislature Creates Law: The Florida Legislature enacted § 741.30(4) requiring courts to "set a hearing" and § 119.071(2)(j) creating a temporal public records exemption "until service." These are legislative determinations about procedure and access.

2. Clerks Administer, Not Create: Clerks implement statutes as written—they do not have authority to create "Waiver of Return Hearing" forms that eliminate statutorily mandated hearings or extend public records exemptions beyond their statutory termination points.

3. Remedy Lies with Legislature: If the Legislature determines that secret injunction proceedings are necessary to protect petitioner safety, the Legislature must enact appropriate statutory frameworks balancing safety with due process. Such frameworks might include: automatic sealing with unsealing upon respondent motion; redacted access to prior allegations; judicial review before extending confidentiality beyond service; or statewide uniform standards.

Absent legislative action, the current practice—where each clerk invents their own policies, some deny access entirely, others grant it with conditions, and unauthorized forms proliferate—represents an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority.

H. Mandamus is the Appropriate Remedy

A writ of mandamus is appropriate when: (1) the petitioner has a clear legal right to the requested relief; (2) the respondent has an indisputable legal duty to perform the act in question; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available. State ex rel. Evans v. Chappel, 308 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975).

All three requirements are satisfied:

1. Clear Legal Right: Pro se litigants have clear constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and Florida's Access to Courts provision (Article I, Section 21). Conditioning access to case files on ability to afford counsel violates these established rights.

2. Indisputable Duty: The State Courts Administrator has a ministerial duty to administer access standards that comply with constitutional requirements. This is non-discretionary—the State cannot implement policies that violate equal protection, due process, or access to courts simply because such policies are administratively convenient.

3. No Adequate Alternative Remedy: Only the Florida Supreme Court can modify its own Administrative Orders. Trial courts lack authority to declare the Matrix unconstitutional or direct statewide compliance. District courts of appeal lack original jurisdiction to provide uniform, statewide relief. Individual litigants pursuing habeas relief or appeals face case-by-case adjudication without systemic correction. Mandamus is the only remedy that can provide comprehensive, statewide relief correcting the Matrix's constitutional deficiencies.

I. The Stakes: Systemic Deprivation of Fundamental Rights

The violations documented in this analysis affect every pro se litigant in Florida's injunction system—thousands of individuals annually who cannot afford attorneys and therefore receive only "case number" access while their represented counterparts (or subsequent accusers' counsel) obtain full case files.

These are not abstract constitutional concerns. The Matrix's wealth-based access restrictions create concrete, measurable harm:

1. Respondents cannot establish res judicata or collateral estoppel defenses based on prior favorable adjudications they cannot access;

2. Respondents cannot impeach petitioners with prior inconsistent sworn statements contained in inaccessible filings;

3. Respondents cannot demonstrate patterns of abuse of process when prior dismissed or denied petitions are concealed;

4. Respondents are deprived of Second Amendment rights, freedom of movement, and freedom of association based on proceedings where exculpatory evidence is systematically withheld;

5. Poor respondents and racial minorities—who are disproportionately unable to afford legal representation—suffer these deprivations at higher rates than wealthy white respondents, creating disparate impact in a federally funded system in violation of Title VI.

This is not a theoretical exercise in constitutional law. This is a functioning system of wealth-based discrimination that denies fundamental rights to Florida's poorest residents while granting those same rights to anyone who can afford an attorney.

J. Conclusion: The Matrix Must Be Corrected

Florida's Access Security Matrix, as currently implemented, creates a two-tiered justice system where constitutional rights depend on economic status. The attorney works for the party. The attorney's knowledge is the party's knowledge. There is no legitimate governmental interest in allowing attorneys to access case information while denying that same information to the parties they represent based solely on ability to pay for representation.

Combined with misapplication of public records exemptions, unauthorized clerk-created forms, inconsistent application across counties, and structural ex parte communication problems, the current system represents a fundamental failure to provide equal justice under law.

The relief requested—amending the Matrix to grant pro se parties the same access as their attorneys would receive, clarifying that dismissed cases are not perpetually confidential, and directing clerks to cease distribution of unauthorized waiver forms—is modest, legally sound, and constitutionally required.

Only direct action by the Florida Supreme Court can provide uniform, statewide correction of these systemic constitutional violations. The Matrix can and must be amended to ensure that Florida's courts remain "open to every person"—not just those who can afford attorneys.