For the record, I've never met Attorney Snyder (though his commercials are on TV often enough that I feel as though I do!) and I have no interest in the outcome of whatever divorce proceedings may or may not be taking place. I just wish the two of them well whatever happens.
On the other hand, he's a public figure and so it's at the very least borderline as to whether news of his private life is newsworthy.
The Trib has decided that it is.
And that's the switch for the Scaife camp, isn't it? A HUGE switch.
From Dietch at the City Paper in 2007:
Thanks to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, you no longer have to wonder why Pittsburgh Tribune-Review publisher Richard Mellon Scaife worked so hard to have his ongoing divorce proceedings sealed.Ah...so the details of a divorce of a prominent Pittsburgh were to be sealed and hidden away from the public.
Earnings of $3.9 million per month; annual loses at his downtown paper totaling $20 million to $30 million a year; an alleged affair; and a whopping, record-setting temporary alimony payment of $725,000 per month.
Despite his best efforts, some of the most sensitive documents filed in the case of pre-nupless, billionaire Scaife's divorce are now a matter of public record. But Scaife is fighting to have those documents hidden again -- with a legal petition that is itself sealed.
On Sept. 16, the Tribune-Review's rival, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, published a story by reporter Dennis Roddy revealing some of the allegations contained in legal filings. The papers alleged that Scaife was underwriting his wife's living expenses, and the Tribune-Review's business losses, to the tune of millions of dollars a year.
On Friday Sept. 21, Roddy and the paper were served with summons to appear at 4 p.m. Sept. 26 in front of Judge Alan Hertzberg: Scaife was demanding that the paper return published documents to the court.
So I have to I wonder why the Scaife's Trib decided to out Snyder's divorce but his lawyers fought to keep his own embarrassing secrets hidden.
I guess I have an answer - and now you do, too.
Only court records that should be sealed are those that would embarrass or could be used to sue Law Enforcement.
What an odd assertation. Law enforcement officers and police departments are sued all the time.
Police lawyers have claimed in court that they could not release affidavits or search warrants for raids that turned up nothing because the person would use that information to sue them.
See Jose Guerena shooting
After Susan Stuckey was shot to death in 2010, Prairie Village police said she had threatened officers with a baseball bat, a broom and a knife.
Beverly Stewart, her mother, didn’t understand why that would have led to a shooting. She asked police for the records and finally filed a lawsuit.
When the case went to court two years later, Prairie Village lawyers argued the records couldn’t be released because:
• They were part of a criminal investigation and as such could release sensitive information such as names of a confidential informant.
• Stewart had failed to show there was legitimate public interest in the case to release the records.
• Stewart had met with the district attorney’s office, police and a city attorney and had been given the facts of the case verbally.
But after reviewing the police file, Johnson County District Judge David Hauber said in a hearing last year that releasing the records would not interfere with any criminal investigation or prosecution because there wasn’t one.
“Releasing these records may result in a lawsuit, it may result in criticism, but that’s not the basis for which the court needs to make a determination that these records should be withheld,”
Post a Comment