DEMOCRATS PROTECTING THE BOSTON BOMBERS...........

[Whirlaway]

Expansion...........

Originally Posted by bojulay

Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, yearning
to set up and detonate their bombs, with time enough left over
to meet up at Starbucks for a round of lattes; paid for with a government issued EBT card.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You may think that, but if a Conservative murdered and maimed; I doubt it..........all Democrats would be out front and center jabbering about all the public assistance that was paid, no doubt !

It is what the left does with those they disagree; I already told you about how Obama, Reid, the anti-McConnell people, etc. operated when it comes to privacy..........Progressive liberals don't give a shit about principals, they will mow you down in a second if you oppose them...

Look at what Obama did in his first campaign in Illinois; he got hold of court sealed divorce papers to use against his opponents....privacy be damned.....

Again, why do Democrats try to keep private what is obviously in the public interest; but make public, matters that should be kept private ??????????

divorce records are generally public records and can be accessed by anyone. How each state handles them varies. Some you could obtain from the state vital records office. Others, you'd have to ask the county registrar or court where the divorce was filed.

[scrambam]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Democrats have no problem outing the personal finances and lives of a private citizen; but go balls to the walls to protect the very public funding that the Boston terrorists received....

Talk about fucked up priorities.

I can see why you are yearning to breath free with your head up your ass.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If it was Gov. Perry; we would no doubt have a full public accounting of all the public assistance these terrorists got from us;

I think the lesson is - the Boston Bombers were state sponsored terrorists ! Payed for by the good citizens of the US of A. Gov. Patrick just doesn't want to acknowledge it; it doesn't help the Democrats pro amnesty, open border sentiments.

Well, if Governor Perry could remember the names of the agencies that provided public assistance, you might be right. But....that's a stretch for Governor Perry.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by CJ7

divorce records are generally public records and can be accessed by anyone. How each state handles them varies. Some you could obtain from the state vital records office. Others, you'd have to ask the county registrar or court where the divorce was filed.

The Ryan's records were under seal. Please, CBJ7, you will sound less stupid if you even have a remote idea of what you are talking about before you post. Certainly you could have googled that, and found a site you could copy and paste without sourcing. I mean, you've done it before.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Ryan's records were under seal. Please, CBJ7, you will sound less stupid if you even have a remote idea of what you are talking about before you post. Certainly you could have googled that, and found a site you could copy and paste without sourcing. I mean, you've done it before.

what part of "are generally" escapes you ?

maybe you should try to comprehend what other people type, you'll sound less stupid ... if that's possible

[CuteOldGuy]

Nice dodge, but it didn't work, CBJ7. Once again, you have been exposed as an Obamatomic idiot. Obama got those documents fraudulently. They weren't public record. I don't care what the big Obamatron in Chicago transmits to you.

You really need to disengage (look it up) from that thing.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Nice dodge, but it didn't work, CBJ7. Once again, you have been exposed as an Obamatomic idiot. Obama got those documents fraudulently. They weren't public record. I don't care what the big Obamatron in Chicago transmits to you.

You really need to disengage (look it up) from that thing.

really, how did he do that?

never mind I know ... too bad a tough lawyer like you doesn't ..

Why Unseal Ryan's Divorce Papers?

Neither Jack nor Jeri wanted them unsealed. What gives?

By Brendan Koerner|Posted Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 6:05 PM

• <LI class="sl-tbar-item sl-tbar-sp tbar-item">

Records from the 1999 divorce of Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan were unsealed Monday, and the revelations contained therein are spooking some of his supporters. The documents contain allegations from his ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, that her then-husband had a predilection for taking her to raunchy sex clubs. Both Ryans opposed the unsealing of the divorce records. Why was the court permitted to overrule their wishes?Because the First Amendment rights of media organizations generally supercede the privacy rights of litigants, since the American legal system favors transparency in all court proceedings. In the Ryan case, the Chicago Tribune and a Chicago TV station sued in Los Angeles (where the divorce proceedings took place) to unseal the records. In keeping with prior rulings nationwide, the court concluded that the public's right of access outweighed whatever emotional distress the unsealing might cause.

[Yssup Rider]

Looks like Whinys getting his ass handed to him again.

what else is new?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Looks like Whinys getting his ass handed to him again.

what else is new?

[CuteOldGuy]

Actually, CBJ7 is posting bullshit. The rights of the media DO NOT supersede a court order placing documents under seal. The entire purpose of placing documents under seal is to PREVENT them from becoming public.

CBJ7 googled and found a lame defense for Obama. However, it is lame, and it is bullshit.

CBJ7 handed his own ass to himself.

[CJ7]

rather than slobber your piss poor excuses all over your chest, feel free to prove the records were not opened after the court order


To keep divorce records sealed, a defendant must prove that the release of the documents would cause objective harm to a concerned party, typically a juvenile. Indeed, the Ryans argued that salacious details of their case would damage their 9-year-old son. But the court ultimately concluded that only some of the documents contained information that might damage the child's psyche and unsealed the rest. Unfortunately for Ryan's campaign, the courts don't construe the disclosure of embarrassing sexual quirks as innately harmful.
This is hardly the first time that a politician has tried to prevent a media outlet from digging into his matrimonial secrets. One of the most famous was 1992's In re Keene Sentinel, in which a New Hampshire newspaper sued to unseal the divorce records of former Rep. Chuck Douglas. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that "there is a presumption that court records are public," and that it was up to Douglas prove "with specificity" how the unsealing of the records would cause him harm.

The Ryans' records might never have been sealed at all if not for an unbalanced Trekkie named Marlon Pagtakhan. When Jack Ryan initially asked the court to seal the divorce records in 1999, the judge denied his request. But a year later, Pagtakhan was arrested for stalking Mrs. Ryan, who was then playing the buxom Seven of Nine on the TV show Star Trek: Voyager. In hundreds of sexually explicit e-mails, he made graphic threats against the actress's family. (Pagtakhan was sentenced to five years of probation in 2001.) The stalking was enough to convince the judge that the Ryans' information should be sealed, lest some private details fall into the hands of other deranged fans.


did it ever occur to you the records were not sealed for a year after the divorce and anybody could have had access to them ...

nah course not, youre a lawyer

[CuteOldGuy]

Nice googling. Irrelevant, but nice. Unsourced, as usual, but still bullshit.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Nice googling. Irrelevant, but nice. Unsourced, as usual, but still bullshit.

prove it sport

[CuteOldGuy]

No need to. Your stupidity speaks for itself. Enjoy your ass.