"Strings Pulled" in the Legal System

[adios]

Does this ever happen i.e. do people of wealth and priveledge more likely to receive a favorable outcome from the legal system? I was thinking about the sealed court records in the Jack and Jeri Ryan divorce case as one rather insignificant example. Perhaps having divorce records sealed is SOP where they lived but it's not where I live. Then of course there's the O.J. trial with the "Dream Team."

[GWB]

I know one billionaire Presidential candidate who still has his divorce records sealed.

[jokerswild]

I know of one candidate that when asked about cocaine use in 2000 stated that he hadn't done any illegal drugs in 25 years. As Governor of Texas, the same man signed a law to send people to prison for smaller amounts than he regurlarly used.

The same candidate used money and influence to avoid charges for insider trading with Harkin Energy.

We can't blame this candidate much for not learning family values. His brother loaned his brother's own comapanies 130 million dollars from a Savings and Loan in Denver named Silverado to which the brother was a director. The terms of the loan were such that if project made money, then he would pay the money back. If the project failed, then he wouldn't. Of course the project didn't make money. Silverado failed costing the taxpayers roughly 1 billion dollars. His brother had his attornies argue in court that he had a mental illness in which he couldn't dechipher a conflict of interest. His grandfather had assets seized in 1943 from a company, in which his grandfather was president, for trading with the enemy. His father was named an unindicted co-conspirator by a man named Walsh.

[adios]

You're right. Do you know the reason that Kerry gives for having these records sealed? Here's a quote from an attorney in an article about the Jack Ryan case:

"The public has a right to these court records. They are like any other court record and there can't be any favoritism toward anyone just because they're celebrity or because they're running for public office," said Susan Seager, media attorney.

Republican senate candidate Jack Ryan fights to keep divorce files secret (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/060404_ns_jackryan.html)

My understanding is that Ryan wanted to keep the child custody records sealed in his case. His stated reason was his concern for the welfare of his child. Is this the reason Kerry's giving for keeping his Divorce records secret?

[elwoodblues]

I don't know if OJ counts as pulling strings. I think he just hired the best attorneys he could afford --- I don't know that they did anything outside the process. In my mind, pulling strings in the legal context would be, for example, using a personal relationship to get your case pulled earlier than others or something like that. I don't that anything like that happened with OJ (which should have stood for Orange Jumpsuit).

[adios]

My reference to O.J. was an example of people of wealth being more likely to receive a favorable outcome from the legal system. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[adios]

I believe public access to court records is considered to be a first ammendment right. But this right is limited. Kerry may have a very valid reason for keeping these records sealed. What is his reason?

[ThaSaltCracka]

if its the law in that state, then they shouldn't be forced to open up the document. Personally, I don't know why divorce records are of any concern to anyone other than the parties involved, but then I am not particularly nosey or a "news" reporter.

[ QUOTE ]
Does this ever happen i.e. do people of wealth and priveledge more likely to receive a favorable outcome from the legal system?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but thats because they usually have very good lawyers. Their "celebrity" status has very little to do with it in my opinion.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't know why divorce records are of any concern to anyone other than the parties involved

[/ QUOTE ]

When a guy like Kerry tries to run on character (although Vietnam seems to be his "only" example of said character), he invites scrutiny into all aspects of his life.

My life history has certainly been dug into, to the point that I had to demonstrate that I went to the dentist in Alabama some 30+ years ago.

W

[adios]

Generally speaking my understanding is that public access to court records is a Constitutional right we have. I have looked at probably a dozen court files from family court myself at the local court house.

[elwoodblues]

A lot of times celebrity status is a detriment rather than a benefit because of the desire to either make an example or "prove" that they system isn't biased.

[ArchAngel71857]

I had to demonstrate that I went to the dentist in Alabama


Then you have terrible judgment.

-AA

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Generally speaking my understanding is that public access to court records is a Constitutional right we have. I have looked at probably a dozen court files from family court myself at the local court house.

[/ QUOTE ] I am not sure, I don't think you can have access to grandy jury testimony, nor do you have access to juvenile records. Maybe thats the law in the state in which it was filed. I personally think its so stupid that they want Kerry's divorce records or for that matter this Ryan guys records. There needs to be some seperation from personal life and political, unless someone flaunts something from their personal life for political gain.

To be honest with you, whatever it says in Kerry's divorce docs, its completely irrelavent to me and I am sure to many other people. Divorce is very common nowadays so the fact that he had a divorce is not shocking at all.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Divorce is very common nowadays so the fact that he had a divorce is not shocking at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that he had a divorce is the only part of it that is public knowledge, what is probably shocking is the details of what he did to his former wife. Remember he had the marriage annuled even though they had kids. Joe Kennedy did the same thing, and it was a major reason he had to withdraw from the race for Governor.

Come clean John. Cover ups are worse than the original sin.

W

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
what is probably shocking is the details of what he did to his former wife. Remember he had the marriage annuled even though they had kids.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or there is nothing shocking there, but who knows.... anyways, he had the marriage annuled because he is Catholic, so if it was annuled(which is not easy to do) it must have been for valid reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
Cover ups are worse than the original sin.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, are you sure you wanted to say that?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember he had the marriage annuled even though they had kids

[/ QUOTE ]

A little known secret about Catholics is that instead of getting divorces (particularly when re-marriage is in the future) we get annulments. This, in and of itself, tells you very little about the separation. Thus, your prurient interest isn't satisfied.

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah but its not as easy to get as a divorce. Usually if you have done something improper the church will not annul your marriage.

[elwoodblues]

It really depends on the priest. Some priests will give out annulments like they were handing out candy on Halloween...others are more strict.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure, I don't think you can have access to grandy jury testimony, nor do you have access to juvenile records.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about grand jury records. From the ABA site regarding juvenile court records:

Juvenile Court Records (http://www.abanet.org/media/nclm/rk1a3.html)

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe thats the law in the state in which it was filed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Here's a link that might be of interest. I'm certainly no lawyer but it does appear that the court records are public in Massachusettes:

Guidelines on the Public's Right of Access to Judicial Proceedings and Records-Massachusettes Court System (http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/pubaccesstoc.html)


[ QUOTE ]
I personally think its so stupid that they want Kerry's divorce records or for that matter this Ryan guys records. There needs to be some seperation from personal life and political, unless someone flaunts something from their personal life for political gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should they have special treatment? See lawyer quote from my original response to GWB. My take is that if someone petitions the courts to have Kerry's records unsealsed and Kerry has a legitimate reason for the records to be sealed they'll remain that way.

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest with you, whatever it says in Kerry's divorce docs, its completely irrelavent to me and I am sure to many other people. Divorce is very common nowadays so the fact that he had a divorce is not shocking at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine but under what conditions should Kerry have an expectation of privacy that is different from anyone elses? If it's simply because doesn't want to disclose that information that doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason.

[elwoodblues]

Just as a follow up --- below are some (not all) of the grounds for declaring a marriage a nullity:

Ignorance about the nature of marriage - You or your spouse did not know that marriage is a permanent relationship between a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

Error about a quality of a person - You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended.


Total willful exclusion of marriage - You or your spouse did not intend to contract marriage as the law of the Catholic Church understands marriage. Rather, the ceremony was observed solely as a means of obtaining something other than marriage itself, e.g., to obtain legal status in the country or to legitimize a child.

Willful exclusion of children (i.e. wife took the pill)- You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, to deny the other's right to sexual acts open to procreation

Willful exclusion of marital permanence - You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to create a permanent relationship, retaining an option to divorce

Error regarding marital indissolubility that determined the will - You or your spouse married believing that civil law had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce

Error regarding marital sacramental dignity that determined the will - You and your spouse married believing that marriage is not a religious or sacred relationship but merely a civil contract or arrangement.

[GWB]

Every reason you list would mean that either Kerry or his wife were incompetent or dishonest in matters of matrimony. This would definitely reflect poorly on Kerry's character. All the more reason to release these documents.

[J.R.]

Its a right to privacy (the "judicially recognized" consitutional right found in Roe and elsewhere) v. general right of publicity steeming from the 1st amendment's freedom of press, the 6th amendment's right to an open trial and common law. Massachusetts case law has set out the following spots where the privacy right may be persuassive enough to outweigh the publicity interest in court documents.

Generally, under the common law, a heightened expectation of privacy or confidentiality in court records has been found to exist only in those limited instances in which an accusation of sexual assault has been made, or in which trade secrets, potentially defamatory material, or threats to national security may be implicated. H.S. Gere & Sons, Inc. v. Frey, 400 Mass. 326, 509 N.E.2d 271 (1987).

So I guess the Kerry's basis for sealing arises from some allegedly defamamtory stuff in the divorce records. But I sure it wasn't hard for a democratic politiican from Mass. to get the benefit of the doubt.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should they have special treatment?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not trying to imply THEY deserve special treatment, I was imply everyone should have that right, oh well.

[ QUOTE ]
My take is that if someone petitions the courts to have Kerry's records unsealsed and Kerry has a legitimate reason for the records to be sealed they'll remain that way.


[/ QUOTE ] I agree

[andyfox]

"Does this ever happen i.e. do people of wealth and priveledge more likely to receive a favorable outcome from the legal system?"

Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west?

[Ray Zee]

with money you get to have a better car. or get a better mechanic to work on it. and to pay for better legal representation in the court system. it is fair. though not entirely from everyones perspective. there are reasons why it pays to work and be industrious and get ahead. then when problems arise you have the resources to correct them.

courts do give special treatment to high profile cases. as many people involved are elected, or appointed by politicians. thats our system.

[jokerswild]

I think that the Judge made a mistake in the Ryan case. Ryan actually is a Republican for which that I would have considered voting.

It's unfortunate that the Republican party considers harmless sexual fetishes to be more damning than lying to the country, lying to Congress, cocaine use, insider trading, embezzlement, and the illegal disclosure of CIA covert operatives.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
It's unfortunate that the Republican party considers harmless sexual fetishes to be more damning than lying to the country, lying to Congress, cocaine use, insider trading, embezzlement, and the illegal disclosure of CIA covert operatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa there partner /images/graemlins/smile.gif. With all due respect the Chicago Tribune went to court to gain access to the Ryan divorce file and is considering doing the same to Kerry. I don't think the Chicago Tribune should be considered an extension of the Republican party when Ryan is a Republican and Kerry is a Democrat. WSJ came out with an editorial supporting Kerry's privacy concerns in his divorce. The WSJ editorial writers are hardly Democratic supporters. Hanging this on the Republican party seems to be big stretch at this point to me.

[jokerswild]

You misundertood my context. The Republicans forced Ryan out. The Republican party hounded Clinton for sex, while now it looks the other way to true abuses.

I don't think that the Democrats frankly are much cleaner than the Republicans when it comes to slinging mud. In general, I believe that peoples' sex lives should remain private.

[BadBoyBenny]

Sometimes, but not always, I think being wealthy and famous hurt Martha Stewart. I think having political connections to the right people at the right time is important.

I think there is an obvious disparity in legal treatment in most small towns between wealthy/upper middle class and the poorer folk. I think this is especially true involving kids with 'upstanding parents'. A teenager can get away with serious [censored] and not get in much trouble if their parents are influential and respected in their community/county. In some cases from my town two accomplises in the same crime (like assualt or a serious case of vandalism, etc) received ridiculously disporportionate penalties.

[HDPM]

I think this is right. I have not been able to read all the responses, so someone else may have said it. But z hit the nail on the head. If you have money you can get lawyers who might pay more attention to your case, you can hire better experts, etc.... On a drug case, you might have the money to put yourself through a good treatment program, and completing a treatment program should be considered favorably. A wealthy person is more likely to have the money. Also, the fact they have money often means they have other skills or attributes that help them in the system. Most people didn't just get the money, they had to hone their talent and work hard in whatever field to get the money. So they have some self discipline and ability to handle themselves appropriately. TYere are big exceptions to this obviously. Also, I think high publicity cases can actually hurt the defendant. I have not ha as many rich high profile cases as others, but I have seen more prominent clients perhaps have a bigger and tougher fight on their hands because they have some notoriety in the community and nobody wants to be seen being soft on them. All in all, I think it's better to be the rich litigant, but it isn't as helpful as people might assume at first glance IMO.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif but it is nice for the lawyer...who charges higher fees...


physicians charge the same fee to everyone...it is unethecal to do otherwise...

lawyers are the bite of the priveleged and rich...to state they deserve this because they have worked for it is rediculous (and you know it hd)..

the most likely way to be wealthy in u.s. is to have inherited your money..

once again , you misrepresent the situation..so a DISHONEST profession can charge huge amounts to get "justice"

gl

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif