UFLTV’s ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF THE COURT’S RULING OF APRIL 6, 2016

Ruling on Request for Electronic Media
Request
UFLTV's arguments challenging the
factual and legal assertions of the court's
ru Ii n
The Court is in receipt of a request for
electronic media coverage, originally filed
by Utah Family Law TV on March 24, 2016.
Petitioner filed his objection that same day.
Utah Family Law TV's reply was received
by the Court on March 24, 2016. The Court
granted the media request subject to
limitations intending to make oral findings in
support of those limitations from the bench
at the time of the hearing, as is permitted
by the rule. See CJA Rule 4-401.01(2)(C).
However, the parties stipulated to a
continuance of that hearing. After the new
Utah Family Law TV has not engaged in
ex parte communications with the court. It is
not possible for Utah Family Law TV engage
in ex parte communications with the court
because ex parte communications with the
court are communication between counsel
—ui r
APR 0 72016
4TH D'S TCT
STATE OF UTAH
UTAH COUNTY
Utah Family Law TV
(Eric K. Johnson, Editor in Chief)
2084 Crystal Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84109
Tel. No.: (801)901-8183
E-mail: utahfamilylawtv©gmail.com
IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF UTAH, STATE OF UTAH, AMERICAN FORK DEPARTMENT
BRIAN WOLFERTS, UFLTV'S ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING
THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS
Petitioner, OF THE COURT'S RULING OF APRIL 6,
2016
vs.
Case No.: 074100003
SONJA WOLF ERTS,
Judge: Christine S. Johnson
Respondent. Commissioner: Thomas R. Patton
Please note that for the sake of easy reference and clarity, that a verbatim
restatement of the court's April 6, 2016 "Ruling on Request for Electronic
Media Request" is provided, single-spaced, in the left column below, with
Utah Family Law TV's disputing arguments appearing, double-spaced, in the
right column.
Page 1 1

Request
date was scheduled, Utah Family Law TV
submitted a renewed request for media
coverage on March 29, 2016. That same
day, Petitioner filed his response,
requesting that the Court grant the request
subject to the same limitations as before.
Utah Family Law TV submitted a reply on
April 4, 2016. Because the Court's previous
attempt to resolve this issue from the bench
has resulted in repeated ex parte
communications from Utah Family Law TV,
the Court now issues written findin.s.[1]
[1] Utah Family Law TV has taken the
position that its written filings and repeated
requests to meet with the Court outside the
presence of the parties are not ex parte.
Indeed, the first line of its reply states "THIS
IS NOT EX PARTE COMMUNICATION"
(capitalization and emphasis in original).
The Court recognizes that Utah Family Law
TV is not a party to this case.
Notwithstanding, it has filed a request
which directly affects the interests of the
parties. One party has objected to that
request. It is decidedly improper for a court
to entertain ongoing legal argument from
Utah Family Law TV without providing the
parties notice or an opportunity to be heard.
ruling
and the court when opposing counsel is not
present." (Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.
2014)). UFLTV is neither counsel nor a party
to these proceedings.
It is internally inconsistent of the court to
find (correctly) that "that Utah Family Law TV
is not a party to this case" but then conclude
that UFLTV's electronic media coverage
request (EMCR) somehow necessitates
notice to the actual parties to the case and
an opportunity to engage in "legal argument"
over the EMCR.
The court's assertion that "[l]t is
decidedly improper for a court to entertain ongoing legal argument from Utah Family Law
TV without providing the parties notice or an opportunity to be heard," is legally unsound.
UCJA Rule 4-401.01:
1) neither requires nor authorizes a court to give parties to public court proceedings
notice of an electronic media coverage request;
Page 12

Request
ruling
2) neither requires nor authorizes a court to permit parties to public court proceedings to
object to or otherwise comment on EMCRs;
3) neither requires nor authorizes a court to hold hearings on an EMCR; and
4) neither requires nor authorizes courts to order news reporters to "serve" parties to
public court proceedings with copies of communications between the reporters and the
court to which an EMCR is submitted.
Efforts on the part of a news reporter to communicate directly with a court regarding a
mere request for electronic media coverage are on their face not ex parte communication;
indeed, the court itself stops short of making such an express finding, and UFLTV asserts
that the reason why is because the court itself concedes the point.
Having reviewed the submissions of the
parties and Utah Family Law TV, and being
advised of the applicable law and the
governing rules, the Court now grants the
media request in part subject to limitations,
as follows:
The above-captioned matter is presently
scheduled for a temporary restraining order
hearing on April 13, 2016. Utah Family Law
TV has filed a request for electronic media
coverage for court proceedings, petitioning
to make a video recording of this hearing
which would thereafter be posted for public
viewing on Utah Family Law TV's YouTube
channel. Rule 4-401.01 presumes that
electronic media coverage of any public
hearing is permitted, provided that a news
reporter files a request at least one
business day before the proceeding. See
CJA Rule 4-401.01(3)(A). Utah Family Law
TV has filed a timely request. However the
presumption in favor of media coverage
may be overcome and such coverage may
be restricted, or denied altogether, when
Despite the court 1) noting:
'the presumption in favor of media
coverage may be overcome and such
coverage may be restricted, or denied
altogether, when balancing public
policy in favor of media access
against 'the right of parties to a fair
trial, personal privacy and safety, the
decorum and dignity of proceedings,
and the fair administration of
justice[,]"
and 2) citing the criteria of UCJA 4-401.01
that the court is required to consider when it
receives an electronic media coverage
request, conspicuously absent from the
court's ruling of April 6, 2016 are findings
Page 13

Request
ruling
balancing public policy in favor of media
decorum and dignity of proceedings, and
the fair administration of justice." In conducting this balancing, the rule directs that the court
consider the following:
access against "the right of parties to a fair
trial, personal privacy and safety, the 4-401.01.
whether there is a reasonable likelihood that electronic media coverage will
prejudice the right of the parties to a fair proceeding; whether there is a reasonable
likelihood that electronic media coverage will jeopardize the safety or well-being of
any individual; whether there is a reasonable likelihood that electronic media
coverage will jeopardize the interests or well-being of a minor; whether there is a
reasonable likelihood that electronic media coverage will constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy of any person; whether electronic media coverage will
create adverse effects greater than those caused by media coverage without
recording or transmitting images or sound; the adequacy of the court's physical
facilities for electronic media coverage; the public interest in and newsworthiness of
the proceeding; potentially beneficial effects of allowing public observation of the
proceeding through electronic media coverage; and any other factor affecting the
fair administration of justice. CJA Rule 4-401.01(2)(B).
Here, Petitioner has objected to the
present media request, based upon the
interests of the minor children involved, and
based upon the privacy interests of
domestic cases generally. [2]
UCJA Rule 4-401.01:
1) neither requires nor authorizes a court
to give parties to public court
proceedings notice of an electronic media coverage request;
2) neither requires nor authorizes a court to permit parties to public court proceedings to
object to or otherwise comment on EMCRs; and
3) neither requires nor authorizes a court to hold hearings on an EMCR.
[2] Petitioner has also registered an Undisputed.
objection as to whether Eric K. Johnson,
Utah
Family Law TV"s editor-in-chief, is a "news reporter" within the meaning of Rule 4-401.01.
While Utah Family Law TV's audience on YouTube.com is quite limited, it nevertheless
appears to exist for the primary purpose of disseminating information regarding family law.
Mr. Johnson thereby meets the definition of a "news reporter." See CJA Rule 4-
based upon and that comply with UCJA Rule
Page 14

Request
ruling
401 .01(1 )(D). Accordingly, Petitioner's objection on this point warrants no further
discussion.
Petitioner correctly notes that CJA Rule Otherwise stated, UCJA Rule 4-
4-202.02(4)(B)(i) classifies documents in
domestic matters as private. It is true that 202.02(4)(B)(i) is immaterial and irrelevant to
the court record of public domestic hearings
is specifically exempted from this the argument, and while issues addressed in
classification, making the above-captioned
temporary restraining order hearing a public domestic cases can be private and sensitive
hearing which is subject to a public media
request. Nevertheless, this provision does in nature, it does not follow that all domestic
demonstrate that the issues being
addressed in domestic cases can be relations proceedings involve private,
private and sensitive in nature.
sensitive information. UCJA Rule 4-401.01
does not allow courts to deny or restrict coverage merely because domestic cases can be
private and sensitive in nature. UCJA Rule 4-401.01 permits denial or restriction of
coverage only if the court can and does make particularized findings—as opposed to mere
generalized views or preferences—articulating reasons sufficient to prohibit or restrict
electronic media coverage (UCJA Rule 4-401.01(2)(C) and (D).
Such is the case here. Petitioner alleges
that Respondent has kidnaped the minor
children, denying him access to them for
nearly a year and a half. The children have
now been found, Respondent is facing
custodial interference charges, and
Petitioner describes that they are currently
being held in a secure facility for their
protection. Through his present motion,
Petitioner is requesting that the Court
prohibit Respondent from exercising her
parent time while the minor children
undergo reunification therapy.
Respondent's custodial interference
charges have garnered some media
attention, and this brings a level of
newsworthiness to this case as
With respect to the court, UFLTV finds it
somewhat disingenuous of the court to find
and conclude elsewhere in its ruling that "the
upcoming temporary restraining order
hearing does not directly involve the
custodial interference charges which have
been reported," yet state that:
Petitioner alleges that Respondent
has kidnaped the minor children,
Page 15

Request
contemplated by Rule 4-401.01.
Notwithstanding, the upcoming temporary
restraining order hearing does not directly
involve the custodial interference charges
which have been reported. Rather, it
involves consideration of the best interests
of the children as they begin reunification
with their father. Testimony from the minor
child's therapist may well be offered.
Testimony regarding therapy, particularly
the therapy of a child, is of a truly sensitive
nature. Thus, media coverage of the
present hearing may "jeopardize the
interests or well-being of a minor' and
create "an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy" for the children involved.
Thus, the particular facts and
circumstances of this case present
significant interests which, in the judgment
of this Court, outweigh the interest Utah
Family Law TV may have in unfettered
media access.
Based upon the foregoing, limitation of
media coverage of this hearing is proper.
The hearing remains a public hearing, and
media may attend and report on what has
occurred. In this way, the public interest in
transparency in court proceedings is
protected. However, Utah Family Law TV is
limited to still photography. This restriction
is intended to allow the Court to make
findings regarding the best interests of the
children by receiving full and accurate
testimony, unfiltered by any concern that
such testimony will be posted on YouTube.
rulin
denying him access to them for nearly
a year and a half.
Respondent is facing custodial
interference charges,
Through his present motion,
Petitioner is requesting that the Court
prohibit Respondent from exercising
her parent time while the minor
children undergo reunification
therapy.
Clearly, the upcoming TRO hearing is at
least obliquely, if not directly, related to
the custodial interference charges, as
the court itself plainly acknowledges.
Even /f the upcoming TRO hearing
had nothing to do with custodial
interference, that fact clearly does not
rob the TRO hearing (in which 'Petitioner
is requesting that the Court prohibit
Respondent from exercising her parent
time while the minor children undergo
reunification therapy") of newsworthiness
in its own right.
Moreover, given the history and context of the Wolferts divorce case and news
coverage of same, "consideration of the best interests of the children as they begin
Page 16

Request
ruling
reunification with their father" is also inherent y newsworthy, as that subject has a
strong and direct nexus to the issues that make the overall case newsworthy.
That a divorce case involves children is hardly reason alone to restrict media
coverage to still photography (of all things). UCJA Rule 4-401.01 certainly contains no
prohibitions or restrictions on coverage merely for cases treating "consideration of the
best interests of the children.'
By the same token, UCJA Rule 4-401.01 does not prohibit or restrict coverage
because "[t]estimony from the minor child's therapist may well be offered (emphasis
added).
Likewise, the court's statement that "[t]estimony regarding therapy, particularly the
therapy of a child, is of a truly sensitive nature" is neither accurate nor inherently true.
Accordingly, when the best the court can do is find, as a true matter of fact, that a
therapist 'may" testify without having any idea as to the nature of the—at best
possible—testimony the court's conclusion that "media coverage of the present hearing
may 'jeopardize the interests or well-being of a minor' and create 'an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy' for the children involved" is neither true nor (most
importantly) a basis for denying or restricting electronic media coverage because UCJA
Rule 4-401.01 permits a court to deny or restrict coverage only if the court finds:
• a reasonable likelihood that electronic media coverage will prejudice the right of the
parties to a fair proceeding;
• a reasonable likelihood that electronic media coverage will jeopardize the safety or
well-being of any individual;
• a reasonable likelihood that electronic media coverage will jeopardize the interests
or well-being of a minor;
Page 17

Request
ruling
• a reasonable likelihood that electronic media coverage will constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of any person;
• electronic media coverage will create adverse effects greater than those caused by
media coverage without recording or transmitting images or sound;
• that the court's physical facilities are the inadequate for electronic media coverage;
• no (or perhaps insufficient?') public interest in and newsworthiness of the
proceeding;
• no (or perhaps insufficient?2) potentially beneficial effects of allowing public
observation of the proceeding through electronic media coverage; and/or
• any other factor affecting the fair administration of justice.
The court has made no such findings.
In fact, the court has cited no "particular facts and circumstances of this case," but
has patently indulged in speculation and supposition as the basis for restricting
unfettered sound-and-visual coverage of the public court proceedings.
Thus, in the absence of findings of particularized fact, restriction of media coverage
is demonstrably improper. The court cannot under UCJA 4-401.01 restrict coverage of
the public court proceedings (which are presumed open to unrestricted electronic
media access) to still photography.
1 UFLTV notes that a way to ensure no public or "insufficient" public interest in a public court proceedings
is to deny or heavily restrict news media coverage of public court proceedings to the point that the public
cannot know, and thus not have any interest in, the proceeding. There can be little to no news of value of
court proceedings when courts prohibit and restrict reporting of court proceedings.
2 Another way to ensure no or "insufficient" potentially beneficial effects of allowing public observation of
the proceeding through electronic media coverage is to deny or heavily restrict news media coverage of
public court proceedings by, for example, limiting coverage in the era of ubiquitous sound-and-visual
media to still photography (which is so primitive as to not require electronic equipment); the upshot being
that the benefits to the public of sound-and-visual electronic media coverage are virtually non-existent.
Page 18

Request
ruling
For the court to conclude that "[i]n this way [i.e., restricting coverage to still
photography], the public interest in transparency in court proceedings is protected" is
not only erroneous, it is, candidly, insulting.
To suggest—in an era when anyone with a smartphone can (and does, with
regularity) report both sensational and more mundane news—that news coverage of a
public court proceeding ( of which the court itself makes an audio recording of the
proceedings that is public record) by sound-and-visual means will somehow prevent
"full and accurate testimony" is untenable.
Court security is instructed to monitor
Utah Family Law TV to insure that this
limitation is strictly followed. Utah Family
Law TV representatives are instructed to
conduct themselves professionally, and
refrain from the type of disruptive conduct
which previously necessitated intervention
of security officers.
SO ORDERED.
This part of the court's ruling is, sadly, the
least accurate and perhaps the most unfair
part of its ruling.
The court ostensibly made findings and
conclusions (i.e., that UFLTV
representatives engaged in "disruptive conduct which previously necessitated intervention
of security officers") without 1) citation to any evidence in the record; or 2) providing UFLTV
notice of any accusations against it and without giving UFLTV an opportunity to meet and
defend itself against the (demonstrably false) accusations. Such treatment by a court is
chilling.
A popular pretext for denying or restricting coverage is to "find" that the news reporter is,
was, or could be "disruptive" (UCJA 4-401.01 (4)(F). Anticipating (correctly) that such might
be the situation with the instant case, UFLTV's reporter recorded his public activities at and
in the courthouse, so that if (as he feared) he was accused of being "disruptive" he could
Page 1 9

Request
ruling
prove the allegations to be trumped up and false. The audio recordings of UFLTV's reporter
are available for review through Utah Family TV at this link (that way no one need worry
about exposure to potential computer viruses through a CD):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbeb24zi 00
These recordings show that the accusations against the UFLTV reporter being "disruptive"
to the point that it 'necessitated intervention of security officers" are not merely incorrect or
mere 'misunderstandings," they are based upon outright lies to the court.
Without question 1) UFLTV disrupted nothing; and 2) UFLTV's reporter conducted
himself professionally at the courthouse and in his dealings with court personnel.
Accordingly, UFLTV poses no danger to anyone or anything related to the instant case.
There is no need—and no justification—for the court to direct "Court security ... to monitor
Utah Family Law TV" or for subtle discrimination against or intimidation of UFLTV.
DATED April 7, 2016. Utah Family Law TV
Is! Eric K. Johnson
Eric K. Johnson, Editor in Chief/Reporter
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I hereby certify that on April 7, 2016, I caused to be delivered a true and correct copy
of the foregoing to the following persons at the following times and by the following means:
By U.S. Mail and email:
Kathleen McConkie:
McConkie Law Offices
110 North Main Street
Bountiful, UT 84010
Email: kathleen©kmclaw.net
Sandra N. Dredge,
sandra©dredgelaw.com
Jarom Bishop
BISHOP LAW, P.C.
204 Historic 25th Street Ste.
202
Ogden, Utah 84401
Email: jarom©jjbishoplaw.com
Marian H. Ito
Utah Attorney General
Division of Child and Family
Support
150 E Center, Ste 2100
Provo, UT 84606
Email: mito@utah.gov
Is! Eric K. Johnson
Page 110

UFLTV’s ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF THE COURT’S RULING OF APRIL 6, 2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to UFLTV’s ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF THE COURT’S RULING OF APRIL 6, 2016

Similar to UFLTV’s ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF THE COURT’S RULING OF APRIL 6, 2016 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

UFLTV’s ARGUMENTS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF THE COURT’S RULING OF APRIL 6, 2016