{"id":33695,"date":"2025-02-27T16:16:01","date_gmt":"2025-02-27T23:16:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amicuscuria.com\/wordpress\/?p=33695"},"modified":"2025-02-28T03:58:55","modified_gmt":"2025-02-28T10:58:55","slug":"judge-cobb-24-2-00002-23-order-nixes-1st-6th-amendment-principles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/amicuscuria.com\/wordpress\/judge-cobb-24-2-00002-23-order-nixes-1st-6th-amendment-principles\/","title":{"rendered":"Cobb’s 24-2-00002-23 Order Moots 1st, 6th Amendments"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Mason
Mason Superior CourtJudge Monty Cobb<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Judge Cobb (while Brown, and Goodell were still sitting judges) signed an Order in 2024 restricting the public and Press from attending Superior Court hearings via Zoom video sessions. (Case #24-2-00002-23)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Cobb excuses the public restriction citing lack of an explicit Constitutional mandate requiring Zoom sessions for the public\/observers\/press along with arguments citing the expense of Zoom subscriptions and maintaining control over courtroom proceedings. But, this is a very 20th Century argument at best–contrary to good public policy benefitting the community, litigants, and Court alike. The 6th and 1st Amendments are not discretionary or largesse belonging to the Court or even the litigants, but to the public intrinsically and inalienably. In the famous words of JFK’s inaugaurul address to Congress, “The rights of man do not flow from the largesse of government, but are endowed upon us by our Creator.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following case law and dissertation emphasizes the word ALL<\/strong> (see Jafar v. Webb, WA Supreme Court case about civil fees for access to justice; Abeda JAFAR, Petitioner, v. William Douglass WEBB, Respondent) in the context of a bar to restricting the public’s access to observe court proceedings according to strict scrutiny standartds. i.e. The state\/government has a very heavy burden (strict scrutiny) to meet in demonstrating a compelling (but least restrictive) reason to attenuate the public’s right to observe all stages of court proceedings. Zoom sessions have become the optimal mode of accommodating the poor, the handicapped, the press, and medically vulnerable wishing to monitor the critical functions of the judiciary–the most expensive portion (58%) of Mason County’;s budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact judge Cobb finds Zoom sessions irritating is insufficient to overcome the public’s right to utilize what it has already paid for. Jails are expensive. Judges are expensive. Court appointed attorneys, clerks, computors and prosecutors are expensive. Yet they, along with a fair trial, are necessary. It is not enough that justice be done. It must be seen. Not only is fairness requuired, but the appearance of fairness. This is black letter law. It is not discretionary. The value of transparency also acts to temper the unbridled unaccountability of sitting judges. The public can watch, unhindered, the temperament and suitability of their elected judges. Mason County courts should encourage more transparency, not less. In the 21st Century, that means utilizing modern telecommunications video technology to transcend time and distance, minimizing public health\/pandemic risks–democratizing access to the courts for even the least of citizens who otherwise would not have the means\/ability to physically reach the threshold of the courthouse doors and beyond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please take the time to read and ponder the well stated arguments (below) favoring more transparent courtroom proceedings and meaningful access to those proceedings, expecially for the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguably, litigants, witnesses and their attorneys are required to personally attend court hearings to meet the confrontation clause <\/em>of the Constitution. This is not a valid argument against the public’s right to observe the proceedings, even remotely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court has seen fit to arraign defendants remotely for its own efficiency and to reduce expenses. Those same considerations should be given to the public’s right to observe courtroom proceedings. Bad things happen behind closed doors…even if they’re kept open a crack. Zoom sessions allow the public and sunlight to shine on proceedings that often affect entire families and communities. Consider voting a judge out of office who makes it more difficult for the public to observe court proceedings–including the attenuation of remote access through Zoom sessions. The public is entitled to what it has paid for despite the personal biases of judges who dislike the technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Information<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

24-2-00002-23 | ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS vs MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Number
24-2-00002-23<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court
Mason<\/p>\n\n\n\n

File Date
01\/02\/2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Type
MSC2 Miscellaneous – Civil<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Status
Completed\/Re-Completed<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Party<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Defendant
MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Events and Hearings<\/h1>\n\n\n\n