David Reimann

That's not true.

We cited the court to eight different cases, all criminal cases in the state of Utah, where this is the procedure that judges routinely follow, including judges in this building.

Counsel said that our role is strictly limited to advocating for what is under Rule 4202.04.

I don't think she meant this, but as the court probably knows, that just deals with court records.

We're also entitled under governing constitutional case law to advocate against the closure of proceedings.

And that rule does not technically apply to proceedings, it just applies to records.

So just to be clear, but I think we have been clear and this is all, I mean there wasn't a whole lot of daylight between what council was just suggesting our role should be and what we've asked for.

Which is just if they file a motion that seeks to prevent

that wants to classify something as non-public, like they did last night with the motion to disqualify.

they were able to at least provide that to us.

It's not very hard to send an email.

That's all that we've asked for in terms of the notice.

And then we have the right to be heard on those issues.

And so I didn't really hear from counsel any reason why we should not be granted limited party status in this case, other than just some sort of confusion on their part as to what that would actually look like.

I don't know how the clerk deals with parties on the docket.

I assume you guys can sort that out.

Typically, when we intervene on behalf of the news media in cases, they are listed because they are limited purpose parties.

But the court can, you know, if it doesn't want to hear from us on a particular issue, it can certainly say that.

I mean, we don't have any interest in weighing in on aspects of the case that don't have anything to do with the public's right to know.

And so I didn't really hear an argument against what it is that we are doing.