Nothing like duping the public out of a public trial - in order to prevent observation of a trial-long ex parte communication between the court and plaintiffs' attorneys

A would be observer of the Mokay trial (see my previous posts of April 6, 2015 to date) contacted me and reported the following:

1) On the first day of trial, April 7, 2015 (when I was, as I am now, sick in bed with a back injury while the court, despite being notified of a doctor-issued medical leave, happily proceeded in my absence), the observer attempted to observe the trial.

That did not happen because the court officers diverted the observer by saying that the jury was dismissed and the attorneys are leaving to go home.

2) On April 8, 2015 when the same observer showed up to the courthouse and asked about the trial, the observer was then informed that the trial is already over because, even though the jury was dismissed, the trial proceeded without the jury and is already over.

By the way, there was a motion pending for multiple relief, including a request to allow to videotape proceedings, and the reason to ask for that was, among other things, an affidavit from a witness pointing out misconduct of Judge Dowd in a back room where he was badgering and insulting an immigrant witness. Another reason was that I myself observed nonverbal interaction between Judge Dowd and Plaintiffs' counsel at a previous evidentiary hearing in this case.

I am an immigrant attorney, so Judge Dowd's bigotry was a very big issue with me and my client.

Apparently, it was more convenient for Judge Dowd to hush the motion under the rug, use my illness to dismiss the jury, conduct a trial in my absence (which, again, was an ex parte communication of a giant proportions), and to fix the case on his own, the way he had always wanted it to be fixed.

Thus, not only the judge made everything in his power to prevent the case from being tried by the jury (which would have highlighted to the community the illegality of the whole proceedings), but, apparently, on the court's directions, an observer who wanted to observe the trial and showed up exactly when the trial was supposed to start, was misinformed that the jury is dismissed and the attorneys are leaving, with an implication that the trial is over, when that was not true.

So, not only the entire trial was one big happy ex parte communication since it was conducted during the absence of a defense counsel who was on documented medical leave, but the court also shut out a court observer, by tricks.

If everything was lawful, why was there a necessity to engage in such tricks?