First: I am not a lawyer nor a legal professional in any way.

Second, I am writing for me and me only. Hopefully that goes without saying, but it’s 2025.

Third, as to access to justice example 1, I am holding back the name of this candidate I am researching in part because I am now in reciept of information via public records that if shared such as his competency evaluation could prejudice a possible trial. I want to ensure that justice is done.

Let’s take the King County Courthouse pictured above. This July and September, I had to take multiple-hour trips on public transit - which at least in the cases of Sound Transit & Skagit Transit is relatively safe, to make in-person visits, drop off checks, and working with an outdated computer terminal to get court information about the court case a candidate for office & public comment bully is involved in.

The defendant in this case is someone I have to research. Not just for an upcoming book and not just because he’s a candidate for office, but because we are having stress-tested critical laws – such as RCW 42.30, the Open Public Meetings Act, and RCW 42.17A.555, the law regarding the ban on using public facilities for campaigns – by this perennial candidate’s misconduct.

It would be thoughtful if the King County District Court allowed people to watch court proceedings live - like Seattle courts do, and many others across the nation. Ditto having an online public records payment system. The public has a right to see justice being done, and a responsibility to not interfere with the work of justice.

Instead, I have to make these journeys to The King County District Court Clerk’s Office. The same King County District Court Clerk’s Office with a single computer terminal and seat that cannot print out records. The terminal also looks very dated. So I decided to use the website and e-mail ahead the documents and court hearing I wanted to listen to. I then turned over the checks both times to see relevant court documents as well as listen to court recordings of proceedings. At least the $10 USB for the recording was cheaper than the $20-30 Lyft or Uber to connect to early morning Skagit Transit.

Ultimately, I hope the courts in this state can allow the public to easily find and retrieve documents using modern technology. Ditto streaming courts on YouTube.

Recently, a transit in Southwest Washington decided to hold a special meeting. Nobody checked that the dial in # was the one for the meeting, not the executive session.

Well I happened to dial into that executive session trying to give public comment to warn against making a tragic investment. I sure didn’t hear anything in executive session that the public shouldn’t have heard.

I have put out inquiries for legal counsel to represent me when these kind of issues arise. Nobody gets back to me.

Have we decided as a state that we’re not going to litigate on and have real penalities for RCW 42.30 unless you can pay for attorneys? Is that access to justice for our state’s communities? Of course not.

At least the meeting clerk apologized and we’re working on a solution. I’m hoping things work out. But would be nice to have legal counsel so that our RCW 42.30 rights are actually enforced.

Finally, I will say after case 2 that I hope for a true open government ombudsperson who can mediate and remind if possible, reprimand (and fine) if necessary. In a way the Public Disclosure Commission has done this with campaign finance law.

I believe a chief Washington State Open Government Ombudsperson that is hired & fired by the four leaders/four corners of the Washington State Legislature is the best model. The public should be able to access records without fear that access becomes a partisan or lobbyist plaything, period.

The open government ombudsperson’s office can also conduct independent research to improve transparency. This could help with dealing with access to court records and other issues of public records and public meetings.