It's been a long time since we've had a chance to take a deep dive into arrant judicial arrogance. So a big thank you to our subject of today's post. Now we don't have to write about Davos.
Word has reached us, that much like an appointed US attorney who refuses judicial orders to be removed (see here) County Court Judge Marcus Richard Bach-Armas has stopped allowing Zoom in his fiefdom court.
First the basics. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.116(c)(1) requires judges to allow Zoom for short non-evidentiary hearings upon request.
Next comes the Judge's remarkable order, dated January 6 (we tell you over and over that these guys spend the holidays ruminating on how they can be tougher) basically threatening the Clerk's Office and the Administrative Office of the Courts with "sanctions" because they have not removed the zoom information on his notices to litigants for court hearings. Now we do not (yet) have inside information, but what we are assuming is the Clerks are having a bit of trouble printing the tens of thousands of notices that go out every month using one form for every judge in the County with zoom information, and now creating a second form for this primadonna judge. And word to the wise- F with the clerks, and no matter what you consider a win will end up being a loss. From lost files to repeated absences due to illness and a million insider tricks, the clerk's office like the Grand Canyon has been around long before you and will be here long after you are gone. They always win in the end.
2026-01-06 Bach ORDER Directing Clerks Delete Zoom by Anonymous PbHV4H
Maybe it's the melancholy we are experiencing as we wind down our practice and separate files for shredding. (1998 Drug trafficking acquittal- shred. 2002 White Collar Fraud Trial in LA- shred. 2006 murder acquittal in Broward- we never wanted to see that judge's name again- shred). But before engaging in the shredding of this order, we will make an impassioned plea.
Dear Judge.
You handle misdemeanors. MIS-DE-MEAN-ORS. To paraphrase Judge Kathleen Williams- the red-headed stepchild of the criminal justice system (she was talking about the Federal PDs office when she said it, but the analogy fits and we love Judge Williams-who doesn't?).
The world does not stop to see your ruling on resisting without. No one cares what happens to the loitering or prowling, or possession of marijuana, or (our favourite) the under-sized snook case. If the Florida Legislature had listened to us years ago, you'd be adjudicating former third-degree felonies, while misdemeanors are reduced to civil infractions. But no- you have to convene a jury because the state (victim wants max) wants to try the assault via a thrown bag of potato chips (a real case we saw).
So here is our plea. The unrepresented defendants, not to mention victims, who appear in your court are mostly from the lower socio-economic sphere of our society. Many do not have a car or a license. Even more are working a job and two or three side-gig hustles to make ends meet. Many are single parents. They do not have the luxury of time to spend the morning driving, paying for gas and then parking, and then missing out on work they do not get paid for to sit in your court for an hour waiting for their case to be called only to be told to return in three weeks for trial. Zoom saves them. It also saves the environment because it removes cars and gas emissions from the roads (although we know in this environment the mention of helping the environment will damage your chances to be appointed to the 3rd DCA because of the environment in Tallahassee). Most of the unrepresented defendants who appear before you do not own a Tesla.
Now we get the judicial/legal sleight of hand. If the Clerks/AOC remove the Zoom notice, then most unrepresented defendants (and some of your former colleagues who are now back to practicing law) will not know enough to request a Zoom hearing because they haven't read rule 3.116(c)(1).
And this (as Bruce Springsteen sings in 10th Avenue Freeze out during concerts) is the important part. We get you do not like Zoom (although we do not know why). But taking advantage of the ignorance of unrepresented defendants (and some of your former colleagues) is just wrong. It violates the spirit of what the Supreme Court did (after a massive amount of pro bono work by our colleague Judge Faccidomo, Esq) to allow the court system to work more efficiently, and make it easier for that unrepresented single mom who is working 17 hours a day to appear before you without the time and expense of traveling to Court.
So maybe re-think your order? Hand out candy like retired Judge Pooler did to people who appeared in her court. But don't remove the notice, take a gummie or meditate before court and get through zoom. The weight of public opinion and technology are against you. This is no Churchillian fight from the back bench warning of the German build-up in their air force in the 1938. This is an order that will actually hurt the people who appear before you. And despite your chosen profession, no one should intentionally want to hurt poor people through the performance of their job. Leave that for the ASA drones moaning victim wants max all day long. Do justice instead.
And now our offer- maybe we have this wrong. Maybe the handwringing emails on the FACDL listserv have it wrong and you are simply and tragically misunderstood. So we invite you to respond. Send us an email and we promise two things- one -it will be posted in toto with no editing (as long as there are no curse words) and two- the comments will be moderated to allow only a fair debate on your actions- no trashing will be allowed.
Yours, etc.
H Rumpole, Esq., Blog Proprietor.
PS: we really liked trying cases before your mother. She was a great judge.
