does not provide an opening to appeal an order the clerk believes is contrary to the rule or, more generally, is unlawful. I am concerned that recognizing the ability of a clerk to appeal in this instance will only invite further questions of other instances in which a clerk may feel obligated to challenge a judge’s order on the ground that it contravenes not merely a court rule, but a statute or constitutional provision. ¶60 While it is possible to conceive of a situation in which a clerk, as a member of the public, might seek to intervene in a case to raise the public interest in open courts and records under article I, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution, that is not posture of this case. See Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 246 P.3d 768 (2011) (<HOLDING>). And, as the dissent notes, the clerk here
recognizing possibility of limited intervention of newspaper in criminal case in which both parties sought closure of court records holding that records of a criminal defendants previous convictions in state court are nontestimonial holding that the public records act does not mandate disclosure of records protected by tennessee rule of criminal procedure 16 holding that a provision of state law governing the closure of court proceedings must be interpreted in a manner compatible with the first amendment right of access recognizing this distinction in case with eeoc intervention