Politician caught in sex scandal!

No clue. Why were Ryan's records sealed? The scuttlebutt going around is that Kerry sought and received an annullment, not divorce, from his first marriage that produced children. This would be advantageous to him as it would allow him to remarry and maintain his standing in the Catholic Church.

Do you know what circumstances would justify sealing divorce records?

I've posted today on another thread re Clinton and Monica that their affair was not public business, and at this point I feel the same is true for Ryan and his attempted escapade with his wife, at least as I understand it by a quick read.

If someone is involved in sexual harrassment (or worse) or fooling with underage folk, then unlawful activity comes into question.

oss

I agree. Enough with the character assassination and thrilling news accounts of celebrity sex.

On the other hand, what joe points to (family values proclaimed by fellows like Ryan or Gingrich) is relevant indeed because of the hypocrisy.

Apparently it happens a lot:

The Hull/Ryan crucible . . .

June 25, 2004

BY MICHAEL SNEED SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


Former Dem senatorial hopeful Blair Hull was gutted by publicity surrounding his divorce.

Now GOP senatorial nominee Jack Ryan is being disemboweled by allegations made by his ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, while the couple battled for custody of their son, Alex.

Hull is not only livid, Hull is coming to Ryan's defense.

"For those of us who know Jack Ryan, the idea that any political party is sitting in judgment of Jack's moral character is ludicrous," said Hull.

"For those of us that know him well -- maybe the word saint is too strong -- but he is one of the most honorable, decent men I know. He is an honest man of the highest integrity, and I consider him to be a man of superior character.

"I may take a hit from my own party for saying this, but so be it. I have not healed from the allegations aimed at me. It takes more than three months to heal." (Hull lost the Dem primary, where he led the polls, after allegations made during his divorce from ex-wife Brenda Sexton hit the press.)

"I was doing pretty well until this week. This isn't fun for me to go through this again.

"Jack should be judged by the totality of his life. Not by isolated allegations made during custody proceedings."

Hull feels so strongly about the agony Ryan must be going through, he even wrote an essay ... which, in part, reads:

"Now that the newspapers and airwaves are filled again with salacious details of allegations made in the course of a divorce against a United States Senate candidate, I'm sure people are asking, 'Why did Jack Ryan run? Why did he run knowing this would come out?'

"Let's reframe that question. Why shouldn't a well-educated, successful businessman who has been active in the community, has an exemplary record of public service, and uses his own money to run for the U.S. Senate despite a messy divorce in his past -- a divorce where his former wife made allegations he denies -- why shouldn't he be judged on the quality of his ideas and the positions he would advocate in the Senate, rather than on divorce negotiations?

"As I said last spring, and as Jack Ryan's divorce records so vividly prove, messy divorces are about two issues: either custody of children or money. In my case, it was money. In Jack's case, it was custody. In neither case were the allegations made by the former spouse attractive, but in both cases it was generally recognized that in the heat of divorce negotiations, both sides often say and do things they later regret. That did not prevent the salacious details of the allegations dominating the news coverage of the Democratic primary, or as we see this week, the general election, to the detriment of the voters.

"Because as painful as this is for Jack and his family, the real losers are once again the people of Illinois who are being denied any kind of meaningful debate and coverage of this very important U.S. Senate race.

"The Chicago press corps SHOULD be hounding Jack Ryan with questions this week -- but the questions should be about the issues.

"The allegations surrounding Jack Ryan's custody battle were an issue for him and his family. They are not the issues that make a difference to Illinois families. And Illinois deserves better in this Senate campaign than, once more, a press obsession with personal lives when so many public policy issues demand a thorough debate."

Hull and I chatted about Jack on Thursday and what he must be going through. You see, Jack Ryan is also a very close friend of mine ... which is why -- in response to those of you wondering why I have said little about Ryan -- I have stayed out of reporting on his bid for the Senate. Once Jack formally jumped into the race, I jumped out.

"My concern now is for my family. Not for me," said Hull. "It still remains my concern. It's sad to think that every idea we may have to change the world can be erased by one allegation. You know, everybody does dumb things. But it's amazing how things can be spun.

"I'll tell you one thing. I'll never read the newspapers the same way again. In my case, the truth was more likely at [the] end of [an] article ... not the beginning."

Michael Sneed is seen at 5 p.m. Tuesdays and Fridays on WMAQ-Channel 5.


Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi

monkey business

Looks like the vultures are circling.

Editorial: Unsealing of divorce records a slippery slope

06/29/2004

The unsealing of divorce court records of a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois could impact the presidential aspirations of Sen. John Kerry, who has his own divorce records under seal in Massachusetts. The publication of accusations made by Jack Ryan's ex, actress Jeri Ryan, led him to withdraw from the senate race last week. Both Ryans had asked that the records -- in which Mrs. Ryan claimed her husband had tried to get her to go to sex clubs and have sex with him while others watched -- be kept secret.

But, at the behest of the Chicago Tribune, a California judge overruled the divorced couple's attorneys, who asserted the public's right to know took a back seat to protecting the Ryans' child from the embarrassing publicity the release of the records would generate.

Advertisement


In his ruling, Judge Robert Schnider said of the Ryans, "They were aware they were in a public court system, and protection from embarrassment cannot be a basis for keeping from the public what's put in public courts."

Schnider also said "the openness of court files must be maintained, so that the public ..can be assured that there is no favoritism shown to the rich and powerful."

Jack Ryan, a handsome, rich Wall Street financier turned inner-city school teacher, was a very interesting Republican candidate. But he concluded that he couldn't overcome the negative publicity surrounding the revelation of his ex-wife's allegation.

Now that the unsealing of court documents has chased one candidate from this November's ballot, will it chase another?

We hope not.

It is difficult for us to argue that public court records as a matter of course should be sealed because they might cause embarrassment to the people involved. We think Judge Schnider is right, not only as a matter of law but also as a matter of fact.

Normal people aren't routinely accorded the benefit of having their court disputes kept secret. Why should the rich and powerful be treated any differently? They shouldn't be.

Still, the media shouldn't be in the business of gratuitously printing the embarrassing details of people's private lives, even when they are brought up in court. The key word here is "gratuitously."

Some people reasonably believe that how people act in their private affairs can be a window into how they will act in their public dealings. If a person has a messy, undisciplined private life, it is not unlikely some of that will spill over into how they conduct themselves in business or politics. Some voters put a lot of stock in the private lives of candidates. It's why many candidates seek to portray themselves of solid, decent family people. Politicians know that voters don't just vote for the political positions candidates take. They often vote for the person they feel most comfortable with and like personally.

Likeability and personal magnetism go a long way in politics.

Which brings us to Sen. Kerry.

In 1988, he and his first wife got a divorce. They asked that the court records of that divorce be sealed, and a Massachusetts judge granted that request.

But now that Judge Schnider has opened up the records of the Ryan marriage, it will be difficult for Kerry to keep his sealed.

Already, his operatives are calling any effort to unseal his divorce records political "gutter ball" and a "trash hunt."

Internet muckraker Matt Drudge is quoting one senior Kerry source as saying, "I would argue, adamantly, the records should remain sealed -- and out of the hands of John's political enemies."

But that can't be a good enough reason for public records to remain sealed. Imagine what Republican partisans will have to say if John Kerry's divorce record is left sealed after one of their candidates felt the need to bow out of a race after his was made public.

Of course, after having access to the records, the media will have to judge for itself how newsworthy any of the information contained in them is.

Ten years after their divorce, the ex-Mrs. Kerry wrote a book about her "suffocating marriage" to, she claimed, help other couples trapped in such unhappy relationships.

We, in the media, will have no such excuse for printing the sordid and unhappy details of the Kerrys' break-up.

We will say the people have a right to know as much as we can find out about any man or woman who wants to be president of the United States.

What they do with the information after chewing it over is up to them. If that includes changing their reading habits or canceling subscriptions, that's fair, too.


©The Daily Times 2004

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12134258&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18168&rfi=6

"Divorce" and "annulment" are as distinct as "marriage" and "wedding." Divorces are granted by the state, whereas annulments are granted by the church. Anyone who gets an annulment must also get a divorce: otherwise, the couple remains married in the eyes of the state (if not the church). Divorce records are governmental records, annulment records are church records.


There are probably as many reasons to seal divorce records as there are reasons for divorce. In general, a judge weighs whether the interest of the public in gaining access to the records is greater or less than the couple's interests in maintaining secrecy. In the Ryan case, the judge made the determination that the public's right to access was greater than Ryan's right to privacy (although in a very limited way: the redactions are much more extensive than the disclosures in the released version of the documents).

Thanks for the information Joe.

It is interesting that in the Sun Times article posted just above, the writer points out that embarrassment is not sufficient reason to seal public records. He also suggests the media shouldn't be in the business of poking around in these matters and he hopes this doesn't sink another candidate (ie Kerry).

I'm torn. I deplore yellow journalism and distortions via suggestion and innuendo that forms the politics of personal destruction prevalent in the modern media.

At the same time, it bothers me that the media has a hey day with the Jack Ryan marital scandal, but then develop a conscience when it comes to a Democrat candidate. I disapproved of the airing of the Ryan matter. I will disapprove if Kerry is 'outed' in some kind of marital embarrassment. And I think it is abysmal fairness for Ryan to be savaged and Kerry get a pass.

I've said before and it's still true. Having principles really sucks sometimes.

You obviously didn't read the Sun-Times article very thoroughly. Blair Hull, a Democratic candidate for the senate, was the first victim of this kind of divorce record revelation in the press. There is no "liberal media" bias here.


Or, in Ryan's case, having principles that conflict with one's actions, and having others learn of that contradiction, really sucks sometimes.

Having read more history than is likely good in order to maintain a healthy social attitude, i would suggest that hypocricy is the all-time favorite human pastime, surpassing even murder . . .

I meant the Daily Times Joe. I posted the Blair Hull piece too. The second piece suggested that the media should now back off with the implication that 'scandal hunting' is wrong and therefore should not be done to Kerry.

And I was referring to my principles, not Ryans. Sometimes fairness actually conflicts with values or acting on one solid principle puts one in conflict with another.

If you think the "Daily Times" article makes that argument, then you obviously have no ability to discern sarcasm.

(from the Chicago Tribune site: it requires registration so I won't link to it, but it's an AP story should it should appear elsewhere)

BOSTON -- When Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry dismissed calls that he make his divorce records public, he apparently didn't know many of them already are.

In 1988 Kerry and his first wife, Julia Thorne, were granted a "no-fault" divorce after 18 years of marriage. They cited the generic grounds of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage," according to divorce records.

The only portion of the records that are sealed involve the couple's financial information, including salary, assets and debts, which are impounded in all divorce cases, Assistant Norfolk Probate Registrar John Jenney said.

Kerry has denounced inquiries about whether his divorce records should be unsealed, a question that has been raised frequently since Illinois Republican candidate Jack Ryan dropped out of the U.S. Senate race last week. His unsealed divorce and child custody records revealed allegations that he tried to pressure his former wife, television actress Jeri Lynn Ryan, to have sex in public at clubs.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said when Kerry said he wouldn't make his divorce records public "he was probably thinking about the pieces that are sealed."

After nearly six years of separation, Kerry and Thorne filed jointly for a divorce on June 24, 1988. Norfolk Probate Court Judge James Sweeney approved the divorce on July 25, 1988.

A separation agreement, which included custody and alimony arrangements, was presented to the judge, but it is not included in the public file. It is within the judge's discretion to allow the attorneys in the case to hold them in their own files, which they did in this case.

According to Jenney, separation agreements do not contain the grounds for divorce but the nitty-gritty of the financial arrangement between the two parties.

On June 9, 1995, Kerry and Thorne submitted an application to impound "all pleadings and other papers filed with the Court" in connection with their divorce. Norfolk Probate Court Judge John Cronin denied the request the same day.

Massachusetts became a no-fault state in 1978, meaning that parties do not have to provide a reason for the divorce unless one side contests it.

Kerry and Thorne married on May 23, 1970. They had two daughters, Alexandra and Vanessa. Kerry married Teresa Heinz, the widow of Pennsylvania Sen. John Heinz, in May 1995.

Shoot, if my wife were that hot, I'd want people to see me bang her too

Thats twice that you tried to make this look like a case of 'liberal media' taking out Ryan but hypocritically not doing the same turn on Kerry.

One problem with that though, I gather. It wasnt the liberal media who took Ryan out, was it? The case to open Ryan's divorce papers was led by the Chcago Tribune. The Tribune, I gather, is a conservative newspaper, which hasn't endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate in decades.

Am I right? If so, how does that turn the story around re: this (purported) context?

LOL! You're reading an awful lot into this, Soz ;-)

(I can think of a buncha (other) reasons to be excited about doing it in public in a err, well-resourced club - whether my gal is famous or not - 7 of 9 or just my own 9 outa 10! )

Well, I did say "or something." ;-)

I dunno. Riffing here. If divorce records encompass some felonious circumstance, then I might want to see them, along with pros and cons on that, but divorce proceedings by nature are replete with mental and emotional constructions made on both sides about the same events, or passages of time. Divorce is often, if not always, the height of an accusation spiral and defensive moves.

Aside from this being painfully personal to most, let me say kindly that truth falls lightly on the land to one or the other party quite a bit of the time. Or that truth is complex.

Do we need for all our citizens who wish to consider political office to open up all these elements of past history in order to be mayor or governor or president? Who is it that will then run, beside the already rich men? One who has watched his ass since age 9?

Gee, even NOT marrying is dangerous to one's interest in office.

I love that futuristic form fitting Seven of Nine costume.

Must be made of little nano-bots having a ball.

It's also good to see that that pesky feminist abhorence of sexually objectifying women doesn't endure into the 26th century.

Hey, what's the big deal? It was about sex and he didn't even lie about it. If we can forgive someone who lies about kinky sex, surely we can forgive someone who has, or at least, desires it.

nimh writes


Kerry's anullment by the way effectively placed his first wife in the position of 'living in sin' and, in the eyes of the Church, made his children illegitimate but this is no real biggie; I just think it's a royal crock. You would however think this would be of some interest to the same newspaper and other media sources who went after Ryan with a vengeance.

Is the Chicago Sun Times a conservative newspaper? They did endorse Bush in 2000 but then Gore was deemed so questionable as a candidate that the majority of newspapers, liberal and conservative, did. It would be difficult however to make the case that the Times is more conservative than liberal. You could expect the Kerry's divorce to receive at least some scrutiny from the press in general after they made Ryan's divorce so big a deal based on 'the public's right to know'.

The Times went after Ryan in tandem with ABC News. There is no way anybody with any media savvy could say that ABC is anything other than a liberal media source at least by U.S. standards.