Sealed Divorce Court Records

[southsider2k5]

Hey Juggs, here's a quote from you on the 1st page:

 

 

 

So, how does the fact that Clinton got a BJ have an effect on his policy decisions?  You yourself said that prior indescretions should not keep a person out of office unless it would have an effect on his policy decision making.  So are you ready to admit that the GOP witch hunt was wrong yet?

Out of curiousity, do you think getting a BJ while talking to a forgien head of state (I can't remember which one) would affect his thinking process. I know when I get one, I'm sure not thinking of politics

[JUGGERNAUT]

Hey Juggs, here's a quote from you on the 1st page:

 

 

 

So, how does the fact that Clinton got a BJ have an effect on his policy decisions?  You yourself said that prior indescretions should not keep a person out of office unless it would have an effect on his policy decision making.  So are you ready to admit that the GOP witch hunt was wrong yet?

QUOTE (JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 30 2004, 07:36 PM)

A judge should only make things open to the public when the evidence is compelling. Either testimony under the consequence of perjury, criminal charges, or something that appears obvious. Allegations suggesting one or both were fans of 9 1/2 Weeks

is hardly compelling evidence.

 

Now either you are reading impaired or dishonest. There's my final word on the issue.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Juggs, you've made 2 different statements on it. You can't go back on the quote I've chosen that you said just because you'd have to admit the Clinton witch hunt was insane and wrong.

 

And SS2K4, it was Arafat who was waiting for him in the Rose Garden while he was getting his knob polished.

 

And Juggs, nice removal of the quote I quoted you saying...when you said: Common sense tells us that everyone has skeletons in the closet. I don't think that should keep them from public office & I don't think that should be made public unless an event has a clear & unequivocal impact on policy decisions one might make. In other words, I could give a crap what Jeri or Jack did or said in there past.

[Texsox]

every politicans life needs to be an open book..

But should everyone who he's ever known have their lives open books as well? This is an ex-wife and children who are being embarassed and potentially harmed. Is there a balance? They are hwe records also. What has she done to deserve this? She divorced him.

[southsider2k5]

I was thinking Middle East, but I couldn't remember which side

 

Anyway, on his own time fine, but does it make a difference when you are negotiating the biggest hot spot in the world?

[Queen Prawn]

I was thinking Middle East, but I couldn't remember which side

 

Anyway, on his own time fine, but does it make a difference when you are negotiating the biggest hot spot in the world?

Hell, I would think it would make him more relaxed.

 

I say both Arafat and Sharon need to get BJs before the next peace summit.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Juggs, you've made 2 different statements on it.  You can't go back on the quote I've chosen that you said just because you'd have to admit the Clinton witch hunt was insane and wrong.

 

And SS2K4, it was Arafat who was waiting for him in the Rose Garden while he was getting his knob polished.

 

And Juggs, nice removal of the quote I quoted you saying...when you said: Common sense tells us that everyone has skeletons in the closet. I don't think that should keep them from public office & I don't think that should be made public unless an event has a clear & unequivocal impact on policy decisions one might make. In other words, I could give a crap what Jeri or Jack did or said in there past.

QUOTE (JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 30 2004, 07:36 PM)

A judge should only make things open to the public when the evidence is compelling. Either testimony under the consequence of perjury, criminal charges, or something that appears obvious. Allegations suggesting one or both were fans of 9 1/2 Weeks

is hardly compelling evidence.

 

Now either you are reading impaired or dishonest. There's my final word on the issue.

I'm not going to waste any more time going through the early stages of the debate.

Only a moron would do that.

You have my final word on the issue above. If you say something in reference to that quote then I will respond otherwise I'll just keep reminding you of it.

 

I learned this is the best approach to take with dishonest or reading impaired people from other threads.

[Steff]

I was thinking Middle East, but I couldn't remember which side

 

Anyway, on his own time fine, but does it make a difference when you are negotiating the biggest hot spot in the world?

Yea right.. walk away from a BJ.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So Juggs, you make a statement and I prove that statement wrong yet you continue to not acknowledge it. Nice revisionist move. It's not dishonest to quote you as saying something when its not taken out of context.

 

So please, tell me in this statement: Common sense tells us that everyone has skeletons in the closet. I don't think that should keep them from public office & I don't think that should be made public unless an event has a clear & unequivocal impact on policy decisions one might make. In other words, I could give a crap what Jeri or Jack did or said in there past.

 

Where was the policy problems that would be faced by Clinton receiving oral sex since you are all over Clinton bashing him for what he did. How would his decision making be impaired?

[EvilJester99]

Well there goes any politician or future one for that matter.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Hell, I would think it would make him more relaxed.

 

I say both Arafat and Sharon need to get BJs before the next peace summit.

 

I think I've figured out the key to world peace -- make sure everybody is well laid.

[southsider2k5]

 

 

I think I've figured out the key to world peace -- make sure everybody is well laid. 

All we are saying is give piece (of ass) a chance!

[Queen Prawn]

All we are saying is give piece (of ass) a chance!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

[Texsox]

Yea right.. walk away from BJ. 

 

[JUGGERNAUT]

So Juggs, you make a statement and I prove that statement wrong yet you continue to not acknowledge it.  Nice revisionist move.  It's not dishonest to quote you as saying something when its not taken out of context.

 

So please, tell me in this statement: Common sense tells us that everyone has skeletons in the closet. I don't think that should keep them from public office & I don't think that should be made public unless an event has a clear & unequivocal impact on policy decisions one might make. In other words, I could give a crap what Jeri or Jack did or said in there past.

 

Where was the policy problems that would be faced by Clinton receiving oral sex since you are all over Clinton bashing him for what he did.  How would his decision making be impaired?

QUOTE (JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 30 2004, 07:36 PM)

A judge should only make things open to the public when the evidence is compelling. Either testimony under the consequence of perjury, criminal charges, or something that appears obvious. Allegations suggesting one or both were fans of 9 1/2 Weeks

is hardly compelling evidence.

 

Now either you are reading impaired or dishonest. There's my final word on the issue.

I'm not going to waste any more time going through the early stages of the debate.

Only a moron would do that. You have my final word on the issue above. If you say something in reference to that quote then I will respond otherwise I'll just keep reminding you of it.

 

I learned this is the best approach to take with dishonest or reading impaired people from other threads.

[southsider2k5]

If you say it loud enough and often enough, it will become true.

[Steff]

If you say it loud enough and often enough, it will become true.

No it wont. It'll just continue to remind us that Jugger lies. Maggs told me that.

[JUGGERNAUT]

No it wont. It'll just continue to remind us that Jugger lies. Maggs told me that. 

QUOTE (JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 30 2004, 07:36 PM)

A judge should only make things open to the public when the evidence is compelling. Either testimony under the consequence of perjury, criminal charges, or something that appears obvious.

 

Allegations suggesting one or both were fans of 9 1/2 Weeks is hardly compelling evidence.

[SuperSteve]

Yes. It is part of them, and something they have done. Who says there isn't a chance of them doing it again. Maybe they were divorced for lying, or something where they could abuse the office they are running for. If you don't want something up, don't do it. Live with what you've done!

[baggio202]

So Juggs, you make a statement and I prove that statement wrong yet you continue to not acknowledge it.  Nice revisionist move.  It's not dishonest to quote you as saying something when its not taken out of context.

 

So please, tell me in this statement: Common sense tells us that everyone has skeletons in the closet. I don't think that should keep them from public office & I don't think that should be made public unless an event has a clear & unequivocal impact on policy decisions one might make. In other words, I could give a crap what Jeri or Jack did or said in there past.

 

Where was the policy problems that would be faced by Clinton receiving oral sex since you are all over Clinton bashing him for what he did.  How would his decision making be impaired?

both ryan and clinton made the fatal mistaked that ruined both of them...they lied about their skeletons...ryan was asked by the GOP if there was anything in his divorce that could be used against him...he said no..nothing...wrong answer

 

clinton looked at all of us right on TV and said..i did not have see with that woman..the policy problems created by clinton's lying was the next time if he was telling the truth about a legitimate political concern , who could anyone believe him???..no credibility means no ability to lead..

 

 

no one really cares that ryan has a kinky side...but when you lie about it..you gotta wonder what else is hiding and just how big a closet are we talking about..

 

dont want your life under a microscope then dont run for public office..its really that simple

 

 

and steff...if ryan had any concern for his children's mental health and knowing what was in those documents he would have never ran for office..he put power and fame over his children's well being...

[LowerCaseRepublican]

both ryan and clinton made the fatal mistaked that ruined both of them...they lied about their skeletons...ryan was asked by the GOP if there was anything in his divorce that could be used against him...he said no..nothing...wrong answer

 

clinton looked at all of us right on TV and said..i did not have see with that woman..the policy problems created by clinton's lying was the next time if he was telling the truth about a legitimate political concern , who could anyone believe him???..no credibility means no ability to lead..

I agree with the fact that his "I did not have sexual relations..." comment sunk him. However the Arkansas Project (funded with millions of dollars by Richard Mellon Scaife) to get any mud they could was deplorable. David Brock, the writer who broke Troopergate, Broadderick and other stories re: Clinton being caught with his pants down said that there was not much evidence backing up 99.9% of the claims and they got lucky with hitting paydirt re: Monica.

 

Clinton was a douche for lying about getting the BJ and that's what ultimately turned the 2000 election into both candidates adding the "I have sex with my own wife" plank of their platform. I don't have a problem with things coming out that can stick but to ramble on about Troopergate and such things like were done (as if they were fact) is deceptive because even the conservative writer breaking the story, David Brock, didn't really believe the troopers. He just wanted to lampoon Clinton more.

 

And if you are kinky and it comes out, speak the same way in public. Have the platform that the government cannot dictate what two (or more) consenting adults do in their own privacy. When you do what you say, you really have nothing to worry about politically. It's only when it's in direct opposition that it has any sort of political firepower.

[cwsox]

just as a point of reference:

 

all circuit court and in fact all court proceedings are public documents except in very rare instances, and I mean, very rare.

 

The Ryan divorce was one of those very rare exceptions. It is a fraction of well less than 1% of divorce proceedings that all the pleadings are not public.

 

Sealed proceedings are always curious. Why? Why are these sealed when the practice is that they not be?

 

It is irrelevant who originally requested that these be sealed. A candidate for the US Senate - one of 100 available nationwide - from a major state population wise where change of party is possible in an electiuon year where control of the Senate is at stake - frankly is risking a lot running with sealed divorce proceedings or sealed proceedings of any kind. The divorce pleadings of any posters here or their parents are public record, we could all go down to the country clerk and get them, why wouldn't those be open pertaining to a US Senate candidate?

 

The original claim by the candidate is as Baggio said. The candidate told Eric Zorn of the Tribune and others that the records were sealed because it concerned his special needs child. That was a lie. It is incorect to state that Ryan did not want the proceedings unsealed because it would effect his child. Ryan's public claim was that the sealed records were about his child. There is a huge difference in those claims. And it is a matter of public record.

 

The records were sealed because they concerned allegations of sexual impropiety by Ryan. I suggest baggio is correct that had Ryan began his campaign by petitioning the court to unseal the records, that this would have been a non issue.

 

It was the news media who petitioned the court to unseal the records. The news media has a duty and obligation to do that. It is not only the traditonal obligation to ask questions but indeed it in enshrined in the constitution, the rights of the press, and in this instance under the Freedom of Information legislation because in fact court records are not sealed so the reason for sealing is a matter of public interest when it involves a candidate for the Senate.

 

The question is not should divorce records be unsealed. They are extraordinarily rarely ever sealed, so when it happens for a person who volunteers to be in the public eye and be judged by the electorate for one of the most important legislative offices in the country, the question is, why are these sealed. The court acted when Ryan dropped his objections to unsealing portions of the records.

 

Blair Hull, a Democrat, went flaming down in the Illinois primary pertaining to things regarding his divorce. Now it has happened to a Republican a few months later. Equal opportunity. Politically the Dems got locky that their crashed candidate happened before the primary. But the same media that inquired into the Hull case had to look into the Ryan matter or else they would have been acting unfairly to just look into matters pertaining to the candidate of one party and ignoring it from another.

 

There is much in the Ryan case still sealed. The released pleadings contained much blacked out portions, more blocked than released. For anyone here to assert that they know what all of the allegations (allegation is a legal term of art, it is not an accusation) and responses are is to assert a knowledge that is not public, privy only to the court, the Ryans, and their attorneys.

 

The private sexual lives of Jefferson, Jackson, Cleveland, among others were issues in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is hardly some new thing in America. Gary Hart's 1988 presidential campaign crashed over sexual matters. In Texas (I believe) currently the ex spouse of a US Representative is running against him. To be shocked, shocked that Ryan's sealed records would become an issue reminds me of the shock shock that that there was gambling at Ricks American Cafe in Casablanca. It happens all the time. This was not some private citizen who was outed. This was a person who said make me a US Senator. He didn't see this coming? No wonder the Illinois Republican Congressional delegation met with the Republican Speaker of the House and unanimously agreed Ryan had to step down. No wonder the Republican county chairs were chiming in that Ryan had to go. Just as in 1972 the Democratic candidate for vice president had to resign the ticket when it was discovered that he had not been fully honest about his past - not what he did per se but that he was not fully honest about it - so it has happened again. And it will happen again. And again. It will happen whenever there is less than full disclosure for a person who wants to hold a position of great political importance.

[JUGGERNAUT]

If ryan had any concern for his children's mental health and knowing what was in those documents he would have never ran for office..he put power and fame over his children's well being.

That is way too harsh. It was a Hollywood marriage & at the time Jeri Ryan was a sex symbol. She was the sexy borg alien on Voyager & the show took advantage of that as best it could. From there her status as a sex symbol took off.

 

What Ryan felt is that allegations in a divorce proceeding that were not subject to oaths or perjury laws would never be taken so serious by the press. Especially a Hollywood divorce. He never misled the public & he never lied. He clearly refuted the allegations in the divorce records. The answer to all of the press questions lie in the records but they of course wanted to grandstand the event.

 

I think the MAJORITY of Americans hold dear to their hearts the rights of privacy in matters between couples. Comparing Clinton's extra-marital affair to the Ryan's infatuation with 9 1/2 Weeks is ridiculous. One involves betrayal & dishonor & the other involves poor discretion.

 

Ryan did make the mistake in not informing the republican party of the content of those records. Whether he felt there was no potential harm or not is not the issue. The issue is that he had a responsibility to the party to inform them of anything that even in a remote chance could damage the campaign. Basically he did not respect the party enough to entrust his political career in their hands. The idea of Ryan being a senator that doesn't respect or trust the party he was elected under is not comforting. If he doesn't respect the party then he probably won't respect the people that elected him & he'll likely put his own interests over the people's.

 

It was a lesson for us all I think because he seemed like a good guy. Wealthy investment banker turn school teacher running for the Senate. Seems like the ideal

candidate. But poor discretions aside we've really learned that he was zealous in his beliefs & would probably not have represented the interests of the people of IL. Once again we learn you can't judge a book by it's cover.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The Ryan divorce was one of those very rare exceptions.  It is a fraction of well less than 1% of divorce proceedings that all the pleadings are not public.

This is a true fact, but the question that I think some in America are asking now is should it be? As you know the press is now going after Kerry's divorce records & on the heels of Ryan's case it's going to be hard for Kerry to protect himself.

 

Divorce is a very bitter & messy circumstance in most cases & dirt usually gets thrown both ways. This is an inevitable consequence of money & possessions being associated with the dirt. The more dirt you can throw at the other the better off you will be is the standard rule. It's even more messy when children are involved.

 

I think it would be a terrible precedent going forward if every candidate who was divorced had to have their divorce aired publicly or in the press. Do we really politicians to have to smear their ex's in order to refute any & all allegations by them in a divorce proceeding? I think the best way to handle this is that if statements are not made under oath & therefore subject to perjury laws they should be omitted from the press.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I can't find the Guantanamo thread so I'm just going to comment here.

I haven't read every word of the decision but what I did read bothered me on one key point: absence of the military presence. It seemed the courts decision gave little to no respect to the judicial branch that exists in each military service.

 

Again I try to balance reality against idealism. I agree that any terrorist charged with the crime of terrorism or brought even for questioning should have rights to representation. But I believe that representation should be confined within the judicial branch of that military service. The attorney should be court appointed & the decision to make the proceedings & records private or public should lie at the discretion of the military judges. I can not think of any group of persons better qualified to weigh the concerns of national security vs due process & individual rights.