30 August 2016

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Present: The Arrow of Truth and Justice.

Because I need it in my personal life. 
Because the World needs it in my business life.
Other folks have their own reasons for their arrows.

Namaste.


26 August 2016

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Update on Yet Another Wells Fargo Multiple Allonge Fraudulent Foreclosure in Snohomish County No. 16-2-02643-3.


 

14 October 2016 Update: John Stumpf resigned, is fired, or whatever.... he's out. See this BBC story. It pretty much doesn't matter who replaces him, what matters most is that he and some of the corporate low-life thugs who presided over the fraudulent accounts and fraudulent Chain of Title processes be imprisoned.  I wrote their attorneys today:

On Oct 13, 2016, at 06:31 PM, Christopher King <kingcast955@icloud.com> wrote:

It's always tough to lose a CEO.

I was friends with Pat Bricker we played tennis together and I remember when his dad got the axe but it was nowhere near as nefarious 

Ciao

Sent from my iPhone

We all know that in NY Attorney Linda Tirelli, the Federal District Court and BK Judge Michael Drain are busy schooling Wells Fargo for manufactured documents. From the 5 October Adversary Complaint in Franklin v. Wells Fargo:
Further, the Bankruptcy Court determined that Wells Fargo’s corporate witness, Mary Ellen Brust (“Ms. Brust”), lacked credibility and offered no information as to how or if Freddie Mac ever possessed the Debtor’s Note. Nor did Brust have personal knowledge regarding the condition of the indorsement on the note as her testimony was that she never saw the original note. 
Further, right here in Seattle, Washington we see the same exact sort of shenanigans in the case I have been working on or following for the past two (2) years as a housing advocate until I had to pass it off to local licensed Counsel Scott Stafne. Inadmissible Affidavits from people who had no Firsthand Knowledge of anything per FRE Rule 602. They never learn. They just keep on bullying, it is their modus operandi, part of their creepy corporate DNA.

Read this journal entry for more. Much more. I'm sure David Dayen and I will discuss it all on Saturday at his book signing. You remember Writer Dayen, right?  From Seattle's Marie McDonnell fiasco where they hired her as a paid consultant yet refused to allow her to present her work on the MERS/King County Audit even as Multnomah County actually sued MERS..... 

Note: The book signing for "Chain of Title" (NY Times) has been postponed owing to inclement weather.





26 August Update:  It looks like K & L Gates is possible Special Counsel. Take a look, and as you do so, read the lower portion of this Revised Journal Entry including reference to a relevant Ohio case, Riddle v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147694 (2015).


Meanwhile, today's 1 Oct 2016 email to all Counsel


2 minutes ago at 6:29 AM 


I've got quite the library over the years. I forgot my observations of Wells Fargo even include a lawyer I am damn sure committed PERJURY. 


 "I've got the original Note in my desk back at the office," he says in hushed tones. I had to push the volume in order to render it audible from the shotgun mic. 


SURE you have the original Note back at your office, Attorney Masterson.... sure you do. 


Ciao.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_lwjNvqdcI



2 minutes ago at 6:08 AM 


To coin a phrase from Geico: "When you're Wells Fargo, you make up documents..... it's what you do!" I am in NY right now -- New Rochelle -- and may stop over to see Attorney Tirelli, whom I have cc'd in this case on multiple occasions. Fascinating how life works, isn't it. No, I'm not asking.... I'm telling. (I'm actually here for my mother's birthday and some work on a certain homicide case but hey in all my spare time, right....anyway I'm sure she's quite proud of my work and that's what counts).



I like Fn 8/9 and the subsequent discussion, which I am now placing on my journal page: 

8 Although Wells Fargo states in its brief that it objected to the admission of the Kennerty deposition and that the bankruptcy court “never actually admitted it” and should not have admitted it because the testimony “was not relevant to the issue being tried, and clearly was more prejudicial than it was probative,” (Appellant Br. 16, 20), Wells Fargo does not directly challenge the use of the testimony in its Statement of Issues Presented on Appeal. Regardless, the testimony was relevant to the issue of whether the indorsement was authentic. Seeing as he signed the Assignment of Mortgage, Kennerty obviously had some role with respect to Debtor’s loan. He also testified based on personal knowledge as to the practices of the assignment and indorsement teams at Wells Fargo. The fact that Wells Fargo had assignment and indorsement teams that, as the bankruptcy court found, would act to improve the record with respect to various notes and deeds of trust in Wells Fargo’s possession, makes the fact that the indorsement at issue here was added after-the-fact to improve Wells Fargo’s standing more probable “than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401(a). 


 9 Also, as with MERS’s/Kennerty’s lack of authority to assign the Deed of Trust in light of the fact Washington Mutual had ceased to exist, the In re Tarantola court found that the afterthe-fact allonge would have been ineffective to transfer the note because the party executing it “had no authority to do so.” In re Tarantola, 2010 WL 3022038, at *4. It stands to reason that a claimant who is willing to execute an unauthorized document to create standing is more likely willing to forge a blank indorsement to create standing as well. 


 *********** 


Wells Fargo contends that the evidence relied upon by the bankruptcy court consisted entirely of unjustified speculation and conclusory allegations that cannot serve as the competent evidence necessary to overcome the indorsement’s presumption of validity. (See, e.g., Appellant Br. 20 (“The Bankruptcy Court’s assumption . . . that Kennerty must have forged indorsements is precisely the sort of speculation that cannot rise to the level of ‘competent evidence’ that the [blank] indorsement . . . was forged.”); Reply Br. for Appellant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Reply Br.”) 2 (Dkt. No. 24) (“Speculative and conclusory assertions are all that the Bankruptcy Court and [Debtor] could point to.”).) 


Wells Fargo is correct that if Debtor’s evidence merely raised some “metaphysical doubt” as to the validity of the indorsement, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986), Debtor would not have satisfied its burden and thus would not have overcome the presumption of validity in § 3.308, see, e.g., In re Connelly, 487 B.R. 230, 244 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2013) (holding that the plaintiff, who challenged the authenticity of a deed of trust and other relevant documents but only “promised to bring forth additional evidence at a later date,” relied on “metaphysical doubt [rather] than evidence deserving all reasonable inference”). 


Here, however, Debtor has not relied on mere speculation and conclusory assertions to overcome the presumption. Rather, Debtor offered specific evidence from which the bankruptcy court found that a reasonable juror could draw the inference that the blank indorsement was not genuine. Wells Fargo’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. 

 
Sent from my iPhone 








Oh, brother. Remember last year when I told you about the file that had the two Allonges in it, one direct from Deep Green to Wachovia/Wells Fargo and one endorsed in blank?  And how when I asked WF which one was attached to the Note, they told me it was the one in blank....  which was bullshit because they are only saying that so that they can play the bearer paper game, right:  Holder of the Note has the Right to Foreclose.

You see, when I asked for the Original Note it was MIA but they had some guy who actually worked at Kay Jewelers or Zales -- one of the two I forget -- sign a Lost Note Affidavit even though he couldn't have any Actual or Constructive Knowledge of what the hell he was talking about because he was busy slinging lowbrow jewelry to the masses when the family allegedly signed the Note. Insane, right?  But welcome to the Wacky World of Wells Fargo. Honorable U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain cracked Wells Fargo's head open over similar fabrications not long ago so one would think they would learn, right? Apparently not, so they want to pass this Rule 11 hot mess on to the next Counsel, so I can go badger them when it comes time for a public Court hearing right.



Well anyway since that time we've seen Marie McDonnell review the purported Allonges and she agreed and went on to say that they're not even recordable documents.

Meanwhile in the related Foreclosure Case Snohomish County No. 16-2-02643-3, Wells Fargo even committed a Rule 11 violation in my opinion by arguing that they were in First Position. This is an argument heretofore never advanced and believe me I have been deep into it with their Routh, Crabtree & Olsen ("RCO") attorneys for more than a year as a housing advocate before referring it out to Learned Counsel Scott Stafne.   So Ms. McDonnell and Attorney Stafne worked together and Counterclaimed a Fair Debt Collection Practices ("FDCPA") Action, which apparently predicated RCO or the client (WF) to punt for new, Special Counsel, identity not disclosed. And when I say not disclosed, I mean not disclosed for a couple of weeks now to my understanding.


The family's renewed offer of Settlement remains stagnant and on the table, I guess. Guessing is all one can do at this point because none of this makes any sense. Read the recent emails below with RCO Attorneys Synova M.L. Edwards and Janaya L. Carter at the helm:



16 August 2016

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Present: One Lap at Grace Cole Park with Bonobo, Bob Marley and Livi the Wonderdog!


From Bonobo to all my people... remember.... you are.... important.... to a lot of people.....

12 August 2016

KingCast Presents: Throwback Thursday Circa 1994 at the Ohio Attorney General's Office.

‪#‎throwbackthursday‬ Holy cow I found an online picture of me as an Assistant Attorney General, practicing oral argument in 1994. James Barnes, Chief, Cheryl Nester Assistant Section Chief (they have since changed Sections) and some Attorney named Chip and some attorney named Steve. Wow. Thats 22 years ago. Seems like yesterday.  

Little did I know what my career would look like in 2017 but I have a clear focus now, y'all stay tuned because loose lips sink ships. All of that was too small an ocean for a man of my Vision, Drive and Determination.

10 August 2016

KingCast Says Happy Birthday Kevin Michael Holmqvist!

So for those of you who don't know.... Kevin is The Man:  He summed up my Civil Rights, Social and Consumer activism thusly:

He fucks with people who fuck with The People.

Love it.

09 August 2016

KingCast Presents: Backfire Moto Night #64 Stills and Ride-Through.


Miss Sarah, telling' it!
This one's definitely for you, kid.
The video is coming by tomorrow morning!

A full set of stills may be seen at my FB page album.

KingCast and an Entire Shoreline Community Celebrate the Life of Ahmie Bin Njie at Ahmie Palooza 2016!


Ahmie Palooza is a beautiful event for a beautiful young lady who left us way too early. Shoreline is no stranger to these types of medical tragedies (Keep Calm and Sophie On, 2015) but the way that the Community comes together to support the legacy and to seek advanced medical research is very special indeed.

I am proud to live here.

Stay tuned for video and a full set of stills by Wednesday morning or Thursday evening. Meanwhile we have still shots of Ahmie, the inimitable Nan Skinner and one cute child with Mom!

Our family lost a sister I never met. I have the only known picture of her in my room, Michelle left us as a pre-toddler in 1958, about 7 years before I was born. We think it was a combination of TB and/or meningitis but of course back then things weren't quite so clear. 

Shoreline Area News.
Ahmie Bin Njie website.
Ahmie Palooza FB page.

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.



18 October 2017 Stanley Rumbaugh is at it again, just got sued.... read this update.

That's Lesley Fleming, a lawyer purportedly representing Zurich Insurance at one point in this fiasco. I am corroborating an allegation that she has been removed as Counsel after Plaintiff Bozgoz issued a Complaint about alleged misconduct in the underlying case.

Basically, the family Matriarch sustained a broken neck during a Pierce County para-transit ride, she died shortly thereafter and the family was forced into a lowball settlement. Her daughter is distressed and could not handle the load so she sought help. As U.S. Veterans they fought back and tried to avail themselves of the ADA protections so that Ms. Bozgoz could advocate on behalf of her cousin and Judge Rumbaugh continued to throw my black ass out of Court (just as he had done with white reporter Wally Brown so he is an equal opportunity schmuck) and continued to deny the accommodations necessary for the family to present the case.

We sued Rumbaugh for violating GR 16, the First Amendment and more, but of course the Pierce County Prosecutor's office lied and the Federal Court allowed him to get away with it.  But at least we educated thousands of people about him and his unsavory conduct that is inimical to the State and Federal Constitutions as well as State Statutory and Decisional Law in his own County. He is not Honorable. He's just Stanley. Meanwhile no response from California 9th Circuit on the Complaint filed against Judge Ricardo Martinez, fancy that.
 



Moreover, Judge Rumbaugh hates cameras in his Courtroom, in direct contravention of Pierce County Judge of the Year Frank Cuthbertson, A Black Man. Now we know why.


What a coincidence. 


A minority favors Open Courts, go figure. 


Shady Jurists Choose Silence. From the Complaint:


63. Forsberg & Umlauf obstructed justice by (1) contacting Margaret Bozgoz on or about 17 December 2016 and informed her that they were filing a motion to strike E Yockmans [with merit] Wrongful Death and Civil Rights case. 


64. Umlauf and Forsberg used their assumptions vs facts and submitted the motion to strike claim against Margaret Bozgoz’s Claim. Umlauf and Forsberg assumed that Margaret Bozgoz had to be an “Officer of the Court Lawyer” in “Good” standing [like themselves] in order to submit a claim. Margaret Bozgoz is not an Officer of the Court however, she is an Army Officer and as the evidence shows, she has attempted to find an Officer of the Court] who looks out for the best interest of Elda Yockman. 


65. Forsberg & Umlauf's, Roy Umlauf, Lesley Fleming then coordinated with Judge Stanley Rumbaugh, Court Clerk Merri Reagan, Court Reporter Carol Frederick to expedite a motion to strike hearing at the last minute during the Christmas holidays (23 December 2016). 


66. The Court lead by Judge Stanley Rumbaugh, the Defendant's Attorney, Roy Umlauf and Lesley Fleming, Court Reporter Carol Frederick and Court Clerk, Merri Reagan discriminated against the Plaintiffs by requiring the Plaintiff to attend the 23 December 2016 [last minute hearing] and excusing the Defendants, Youssef Essakhi, Jane Doe, Zurich, Life Transportations, and Zurich Insurance from attending (Exhibits 15 and 16, Judge Stanley Order Setting Court Schedule to All Parties).  


67. The Court lead by Judge Stanley Rumbaugh, Defendants, the Defendants Defense Attorney, Roy Umlauf and Lesley Fleming, Court Reporter Carol Frederick and Court Clerk, Merri Reagan discriminated and abused their authority by coordinating a last-minute hearing on 23 December 2016 at 0900-0915 am then altered court documents to make it appear that Margaret Bozgoz's "Court Call" did not get disconnected during the hearing (Exhibit 16, Order Granting Civil Rights and Wrongful Death Violation/with Prejudice). 


68. The Court lead by Judge Stanley Rumbaugh, Defendants, the Defendant's Attorney, Roy Umlauf and Lesley Fleming, Court Reporter Carol Frederick and Court Clerk, Merri Reagan discriminated against the plaintiff by pretending that the Defendants were actually in court testifying during the hearing (Exhibit 17, Carol Fredericks Altered Transcripts). 


69. The Court lead by Judge Stanley Rumbaugh, Defendants, the Defendants Defense Attorneys, Roy Umlauf and Lesley Fleming, Court Reporter Carol Frederick and Court Clerk, Merri Reagan discriminated against the Plaintiff by allowing the Defendant’s alleged Attorney Lesley Fleming to testify in open court when the Defendants failed to appear in court (Exhibit 17). 

70. The Court lead by Judge Stanley Rumbaugh, Defendants, the Defendants Defense Attorney, Roy Umlauf and Lesley Fleming, Court Reporter Carol Frederick and Court Clerk, Merri Reagan discriminated against the Plaintiff by coordinating a last minute 2nd hearing on 23 December 2016 at 0953-10:00 am then falsified court documents for the record (Exhibit 18, Memorandum of Journal Hearing and Exhibit 19, Minutes of Fabricated Hearing by Carol Frederick). These falsified court documents gives the appearance that Elda Yockman and Margaret Bozgoz were physically present. However, they were not present.

                                              ^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+

Official Judicial Complaint Against Free Press Hater Judge Ricardo S. Martinez in 2:17-cv-00031-RSM King J.... by christopher king on Scribd

Mark Lindquist - Ethics
Stephen D. Trinnen and Daniel R. Hamilton are two of the lawyers in Prosecutor Mark Lindquist's ethically-challenged office who perpetuate the problem. They are defending Judge Stanley Rumbaugh for refusing to allow camera access in his courtroom in direct and blatant contravention of Washington GR 16, and they are lying their butts off to do so. We are simply not going to tolerate it, and complaints are being lodged with the State Bar, The Judicial Overseers and in Federal Court for Fraud upon the Court. Take a look.


Rule 59 Motion for Relief from Judgment: Defendant and his lawyers lied and the Federal Court ignored the facts. 4 minutes ago at 2:50 PM

Judge Rumbaugh headed toward 9th District Court and SCOTUS.

The Federal Court had Plaintiffs' Demand for Judicial Notice and Notice of Fraudulent Defense, yet ignored relevant facts shown in that document when issuing its faulty Order of 6 April, 2017.

It is patently obvious that the Court was and is protecting the lies of Defendant Rumbaugh and his Counsel, period.

Read it and weep folks.

https://www.scribd.com/document/346803750/King-et-al-v-Stanley-Rumbaugh-2-17-CV-0031-Declaration-and-Rule-59-Motion-on-Bogus-Dismissal-of-Free-Press-GR-16-lawsuit

You lied and we will continue to expose your lies in each and every Court and social media avenue we can find, for the rest of our natural lives.

And yours.

Ciao.

CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
  Mark Lindquist - Ethics

++++++++


II. Recusal.

This case is indeed procedurally IDENTICAL to KingCast v. Wright, Findlay & Zak:  Stateside lawsuit with one (1) echoing Federal claim is removed by Defendants who hate cameras.

Motion to Dismiss is filed.

Motion to Remand is filed.

Motion to Remand should have been GRANTED, period.

There is nothing that Judge Martinez or Defendants can do to change that fact, and the fact that a Motion to Dismiss was written prior to Remand is of no moment as I noted in prior filings (Docket No. ________ at ______) because the same exact mental energy (and in this case, the same exact deceit and deception) that went into filing the Federal Motion would go into filing the State Motion.

Martinez joins Landya B.  McCafferty club in hating the First Amendment and Independent Journalism.  See KingCast v. Ayotte, __________, in which McCafferty was forced to Recuse herself after Plaintiff King investigated and determined that she worked for King's opposing Counsel and for same law firm where Defendant Ayotte (then a U.S. Senate candidate) also worked..... without informing King.  See McCafferty's nondescript, back-door recusal that fails to cite the reason for said recusal, in direct variance from her typical Recusals of the period at Appendix _______.


The only difference this time, is that if this Court and the Appellate Court disregard the intent of the Law we are a substantially stronger entity with many more contacts than I was 5-6 years ago, and Plaintiff King is joined now by native Washington people who are on the same team ready to approach the legislature to stamp out unlawful conduct by First Amendment haters like Defendant Rumbaugh.  We will not let off of this case until Justice is obtained. As members of the Fourth Estate that is our joint and several duty, and it is a duty incumbent of mainstream press as well, however derelict they may be in in this instance.

To wit, the News Tribune has written a number of stories about the power, corruption and lies incumbent in the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office.  Plaintiffs have referenced some of these in their filings because there is more corruption and lying and deceit occurring in the case at bar.  But the NT will not touch this with a ten foot pole, nor would they ever dare touch on the possibility that Defendant Rumbaugh violated the law in the Bozgoz case, which was the reason Plaintiff King filed a legitimate Notice of Media Coverage PRIOR TO HEARING but was IGNORED by Defendant Rumbaugh.

It becomes then, the exclusive province of truly Independent media to cover these matters, and in so doing as members of the Fourth Estate we must put our Faith in the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches in order to properly function in what is purportedly a free society. The Judicial Branch has already let us down to this point.


III.  Defendant Rumbaugh Does Not Enjoy Absolute Immunity for Administrative Acts.

Judicial Immunity, to the extent it exists, only applies to Judicial Acts and not Administrative Acts. 

Clearing a reporter to run video doesn't have jack shit (I suppose I'll change the colloquialism for filing LOL) to do with Judicial Acts folks.  See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988)

"When applied to the paradigmatic judicial acts involved in resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial. Difficulties have arisen primarily in attempting to draw the line between truly judicial acts, for which immunity is appropriate, and acts that simply happen to have been done by judges. Here, as in other contexts, immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches."

As such, Defendant Rumbaugh enjoys only qualified immunity and is subject to Injunctive or Prospective Relief, which is PRECISELY what Plaintiffs argued at (docket No. ______ pp ______).

"Administrative decisions, even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not similarly been regarded as judicial acts. In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 (1880), for example, this Court declined to extend immunity to a county judge who had been charged in a criminal indictment with discriminating on the basis of race in selecting trial jurors for the county's courts. The Court reasoned:
"Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. . . . That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court-criers, tipstaves, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?" Id., at 348.
Although this case involved a criminal charge against a judge, the reach of the Court's analysis was not in any obvious way confined by that circumstance.
Likewise, judicial immunity has not been extended to judges acting to promulgate a code of conduct for attorneys. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U. S. 719 (1980). In explaining why legislative, rather than judicial, immunity furnished the appropriate standard, we said: "Although it is clear that under Virginia law the issuance of the Bar Code was a proper function of the Virginia Court, propounding the Code was not an act of adjudication but one of rulemaking." Id., at 731. Similarly, in the same case, we held that judges acting to enforce the Bar Code would be treated like prosecutors, and thus would 229*229 be amenable to suit for injunctive and declaratory relief. Id., at 734-737. Cf. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522 (1984). Once again, it was the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, that informed our immunity analysis."

IV

In the case before us, we think it clear that Judge White was acting in an administrative capacity when he demoted and discharged Forrester. Those acts — like many others involved in supervising court employees and overseeing the efficient operation of a court — may have been quite important in providing the necessary conditions of a sound adjudicative system. The decisions at issue, however, were not themselves judicial or adjudicative.

In short, it is the same way in the case at bar:  Defendant Rumbaugh was not adjudicating a goddamn thing. He was simply applying his own bias in an arbitrary and capricious manner to deny what is clearly a Constitutional Right, which brings Plaintiff to his next point:

The fact that Counsel for Judge Rumbaugh lied and fabricated a tale in which Plaintiff Brown had not notified the Court properly and in which Plaintiff King had not placed the Court on Actual Notice of his pending arrival as a First Amendment journalist, or that he had not put the Court on Actual Notice of his ongoing Notice of Media Coverage, when in point of fact he had done so. See Plaintiffs' Notice of Fraud Upon the Court and Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions, Docket Nos. (___ and ____).

Also as far as lying prosecutors go -- and that exactly what this office contains -- you only have qualified immunity, rather than absolute immunity, for fabricating and lying about evidence. See generally Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 509 U.S. 259 (1993).





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.