Dan Proft is not to be deterred:
“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.”
===
From that same story, so not so fast “former repub”…the contents that are under seal were the subject of a lawsuit Ms. Thorne filed some 4 years after the divorce.
This story changes nothing, the effort moves forward…and you’ll remember from my statement that this is not about nor limited to John Kerry, he’s just the first, obvious choice.
Sorry to burst your balloon.
Regards,
dan proft
Well, it changes nothing besides the entire legal argument. If one notices Massachusetts law puts all financials under seal and custody and alimony arrangements in the hands of the participants if the judge agrees which this one does. What was sued for in the Ryan case was the testimony between parties–a clearly public issue. In this case the arrangements are specific amounts paid and specific custody rules. Big difference and in fact, I don’t believe these matters were included in the files that were unsealed. Pleadings containing specific financial information can be sealed by request of the providing party.
One can make a public policy argument about the wisdom of this policy, but it appears to be consistent within Massacusetts and with California law even and rather irrelevant to the portion of the law that led to the unsealing of the Ryan custody files.
Essentially, this looks like a legal hissy fit now. The reason the Kerry divorce was so unlikely to produce embarrassing information is that it was essentially an amicable divorce. In terms of the appeal that Kerry’s ex-wife sought in 1991 the documents all pertained to specific income changes for Kerry so most if not all of this would be precluded under the same rather narrow exception of the original.
The private anullment in the Catholic Church is said to be heated, but the Church isn’t subject to open records.