David Reimann

and to deal with civil procedure, not civil procedure, but rather just procedural matters.

And so that is essentially what happened in the FL case, which is that whether you do it under Rule 24, whether you do it as a judicially created remedy, it doesn't matter.

It gets to the same place, which is just that we are interveners for the very limited purposes that we've set forth in our order,

We're not going to be here at every hearing arguing, we didn't take a position on the gag order motion that you just heard.

We are only planning to appear and argue so that the court has the benefit of someone who's representing the interests against closure.

Because as you know, and this is sort of why we're here today,

A lot of times this just happens by stipulation because the state and Mr. Robinson's lawyers, they may not want to fight over a particular issue.

And so it really is a situation where no one really represents that interest.

And the purpose of this whole process is to give the court the benefit of the briefing that we've submitted and the benefit of arguments to represent the public's right to attend these proceedings.

So unless the court has any questions, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Just very briefly.

I'm not sure what neutral observer is supposed to mean.

We have interests in the case.

We are here to advocate for openness and against closure.

And so I don't think that's what council meant to imply, but that's the whole reason we're here is that no one else represents our interests.

That is straight down the middle of what the intervention rule requires.

Just a couple clarifications.

Council said we haven't cited any criminal cases where this has been allowed.