08 August 2016

KingCast, Mortgage Movies, Wally Brown and Chris Nubbe to Sue Pierce County Superior Judge Stanley J. Rumbaugh for Violating GR 16, and First Amendment/Free Press in Fannie Mae v. Brenda Duzan Foreclosure Case.

Pierce County Superior Judge Stanley J. Rumbaugh for Violating GR 16, and First Amendment/Free Press in Fan...


This is a complete abuse of authority.
The Court violated Washington Article 1 §5, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Rule GR 16 that compels concrete findings by the Court prior to any denial.

RULE GR 16 -- COURTROOM PHOTOGRAPHY AND RECORDING BY THE NEWS MEDIA (a) Video and audio recording and still photography by the news media are allowed in the courtroom during and between sessions, provided 

(1) that permission shall have first been expressly granted by the judge; and 

(2) that media personnel not, by their appearance or conduct, distract participants in the proceedings or otherwise adversely affect the dignity and fairness of the proceedings. 

(b) The judge shall exercise reasonable discretion in prescribing conditions and limitations with which media personnel shall comply. 

(c) If the judge finds that sufficient reasons exist to warrant limitations on courtroom photography or recording, the judge shall make particularized findings on the records at the time of announcing the limitations. This may be done either orally or in a written order. In determining what, if any, limitations should be imposed, the judge shall be guided by the following principles: 

(1) Open access is presumed; limitations on access must be supported by reasons found by the judge to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh that presumption; 

(2) Prior to imposing any limitations on courtroom photography or recording, the judge shall, upon request, hear from any party and from any other person or entity deemed appropriate by the judge; and 

(3) Any reasons found sufficient to support limitations on courtroom photography or recording shall relate to the specific circumstances of the case before the court rather than reflecting merely generalized views.

No comments: