Asymmetrical Information

I have no expertise, but I heard it argued by some retired judge with too much time on his hands that the rationale is that the public has a right to access the documents that form the basis for a judge's actions. Hell if I know if that holds any water or not.

Meh! On *that* arguement there is no particular reason why our Social Security records shouldn't be posted on the Internet for everyone to see so the public can access the records that form the basis of the SS admin's actions (*Or* the IRS's *or* the public school's or...).

I wonder why people think politicians should think that we have any right to privacy in our personal lives if we aren't willing to grant it to them? ^_^;

Of course there is no vital public interest served.

But, it sure does give you an insight into the psyche of those aiming to hold high public office. He was "boinking" Jerri Ryan and still that wasn't enough. "Jerri Ryan", Damn!

Maybe the judge is a Democrat? That's the only reason for this that immediately springs to mind. That, or he now gets to look forward to a very lucrative retirement courtesy of the networks.

What I find bizarre is that everyone is treating what was in these divorce records as settled fact. Do people honestly believe that every charge made in divorce court is automatically true? That no one exaggerates or outright lies in what they claim during divorce proceedings?

I'd have more faith in whatever is on the front page any supermarket tabloid than I would in anything contained within your average divorce proceeding.

Myria

Duh Jane. This has nothing to do with Jack Ryan (no relation to the perenial Tom Clancy hero). It has everything to do with his ex-wife, who is, um, phenominally hot. Believe me, if this was John Kerry and Theresa Heinz, nobody would care.

Just letting you in on the truth here...

I can't find any grounds to disagree with you, Jane. It's none of our business.

I don't particularly care about Jack Ryan's sexual desires (other than it shows me that I don't want to date Jerri Ryan). But the Ryan campaign released the records because he was dodging allegations of spousal and child abuse because of the acrimony of their child custody battle.

Seems like payback by Democrats for Clinton-Lewinsky, plain and simple. Otherwise, if they had no problem with divorce records being unsealed, they'd be encouraging John Kerry to release his.

I want to argue in favor of this release, but I'm suspicious of my motives for the following reasons: (1) I don't like Ryan - he's an ass who shadowed his opponent unreasonably, and this falls into the category of "bad things happen to bad people," (2) I'm prurient - knowing more about Jerri Ryan's sex life (even lack thereof) is a very good thing, and (3) it makes me laugh - this strikes me as another example of 'Pubs being betrayed by the very "morality” cloth that the party as a whole clutches so closely to its breast. So I want it to be released in this specific case for all sorts of reasons.

The general case, I think, is that our sense of the candidate's character informs our willingness to entrust him with power in situations we cannot foresee. Precisely what sort of information we should be allowed to have in order to justify that trust is difficult to define, and I'm inclined to be over-generous rather than miss something. I just don’t know how you would cabin it. Certainly, private information gives people insight into how another might behave in the future. I just don’t know how tenuous the connection to their public decisions needs to be before we say it’s off limits, and I don’t know how we model decision-making in order to determine tenuousness. So the best we can do is to depend on the good taste of the media, which is admittedly a pretty low bar.

Who knows? After this goes on for a while, maybe we’ll get a sense of what sorts of private information are relevant to decisions about candidates. We’ll stop caring about their cheating, or what they did fifteen years ago, etc. Maybe we’ll realize that certain information is relevant only if it bears on the claims they make now – Hillary can’t make 100K in a month in a shady deal and then decry the decade of greed, for example, but we only care if GWB did coke if the ‘Pubs are pushing a particularly bad piece of drug legislation. Maybe it’s already happening – most Dems know Clinton’s personally sleazy, but we still love him.

I'm distraught. Not only is behavior spelled wrong, but somehow you find his behavior "unsavoury?" Just wait until the news about their "costume play" comes out.

I'd tend to put this one down to the liberal media. If they were Dems they probably would have received much more sympathetic treatment, Monicagate notwithstanding.

It's a sad commentary on the blogosphere that so many of you are offended at the thought of a man going to a sex club or an S&M club. I would expect that from the broader American public, but I expect more from you guys. Do you remember how ashamed you all were to live in a country that couldn't handle Janet Jackson's nipple shield? Weren't we all making fun of those prudes before? What happened to all of the free-love pro-sex bloggers?

Now, I agree with almost everyone (maybe everyone?) who's posted that making this stuff public was unnecessary given that this relates to a marriage with minor children. That said, this:

I have no expertise, but I heard it argued by some retired judge with too much time on his hands that the rationale is that the public has a right to access the documents that form the basis for a judge's actions. Hell if I know if that holds any water or not.

is generally true -- there is a very strong presumption that papers filed with a court should be public. The agreement of both parties to a case that filings should be sealed isn't enough; a judge needs a good reason on top of that. Here I think he had a good enough reason, but it's always a difficult case to make.

A few thoughts:

1. Court filings are generally public documents. Those alleging a Democratic/media conspiracy of some sort are way off base.

2. Statements made in the midst of divorce proceedings are not the most reliable. Anyone who treats them as gospel is in for some serious disappointments.

3. The only relevant issue, in my mind, is whether Ryan coerced his wife into doing something she didn't want to do. Otherwise none of this particularly relates to his qualifications to be a US Senator.

4. It is always pleasant to see moralizers caught with their pants down, so to speak.

It seems to me here that most of the people commenting on this have missed Jane's point - one that I agree with.

The facts seem to be that the records were already sealed at the request of both parties and that they were unsealed at the behest of two large media companies.

There doesn't appear to me (and I'm not a lawyer, so not an expert) for there to be any reason whatsoever for those records to have been unsealed except to further the interests of those media companies, which were almost certainly politically biased.

I don't see any public interest in those sealed and exceedingly personal court records unless someone was making some sort of criminal allegations against Mr. Ryan. It would appear that this is a blatant partisan attempt to smear his reputation.

Of course the records need to stay public. A transparent justice system requires that such info be available if requested. Demands for rationales or relevance to obtain information about court proceedings lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.

However, I think the fact that the media did focus and publicize this stuff as campaign news is pretty shoddy, and I think that the gentlemanly (but not legally mandated) thing to do would be to leave it alone, whether Ryan is a Republican or Democrat.

I also agree with Dennis Prager when he said today that the only way to enforce gentlemanly standards like that is to subject prominent figures of the media to exactly the same treatment. Let's see how the editor or the columnists at the Chicago Tribune, or the news personalities at ABC news like having their sexual lives investigated. It would all be legal, of course. Just very sleazy and mean-spirited, and just what they deserve.

Russell, that is an excellent idea. I remember hearing some remarks about Peter Jennings of some sort pertaning one of his wives. Lte's start there. Larry King's dossier would be as long as War and Peace. Dan Rather's might be just a tad weird.

SomeCallMeTim:
it makes me laugh - this strikes me as another example of 'Pubs being betrayed by the very "morality” cloth that the party as a whole clutches so closely to its breast.

BernardYomtov
It is always pleasant to see moralizers caught with their pants down, so to speak.

There's your answer, Jane. No one does the Superiority Dance with more gusto than the Left.

Jesus Christ, the hypocrisy on this blog.

Jack Ryan's campaign staff has been following Obama around with a video camera everywhere he goes. Not just to political rallies, speeches, etc. everywhere the guy goes. And holding a camera literally inches from Obama's face while he is trying to talk on the phone to his wife, etc.

And now you are all so concerned about Jack Ryan's privacy. "Why should matters of public record be open to the public" you whine.

Jesus Christ.

"To have somebody who is literally following you a foot and a half away everywhere you go ... it seems to be getting a little carried away," said Obama as Warfel held a camera inches from Obama’s face. "It’s this kind of incivility in politics that turns people off to politics."

But poor Jack Ryan, his privacy is being violated. Poor little whining hypocrite.

"He stood outside the bathroom," Obama said. "He sits outside my (Capitol) office asking my secretary where I am. Most of the time, he’s chasing, trying to figure out where I am. He follows us to the campaign office."

Warfel also interrupts Obama, as he did Thursday when reporters asked Obama questions about the state budget.

But poor Jack Ryan. He wanted to have sex with his wife in public, without the public knowing he was trying to have sex with his wife in public. Will the intrusions on Ryan's privacy never cease?

For the past 10 days, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama hasn't been able to go to the bathroom or talk to his wife on his cell phone without having a camera-toting political gofer from his Republican rival filming a few feet away.

In what has to be a first in Illinois politics, Republican Jack Ryan has assigned one of his campaign workers to record every movement and every word of the state senator while he is in public

Poor Jack Ryan. Poor little hypocritical Jack Ryan. Why is everyone picking on him? It just isn't fair.

Gee, Felixrayman, I thought you guys love that kind of crap when Michael Moore does it.

Gee, Felixrayman, I thought you guys love that kind of crap when Michael Moore does it.

Michael Moore tries to get his wife to have sex with him in public?

OK that's an image we all did not need to ponder.

"... there is a very strong presumption that papers filed with a court should be public."

This isn't correct at all. In civil proceedings, protective orders ar quite common. Consider the case where two companies are arguing over intellectual property issues concerning some revolutionary tech process; or, similarly, where there are issues of trade secrecy. Go to any court website and look through the local rules, and/or judges' court rules and you will invariably come across a form for a Protective Order as well as the procedures for putting one in place (technical not substantive procedure).

Accordingly, there must have been an overriding public policy reason for unsealing these records -- as to what that could posibly have been, I have no idea.

I will (sheepishly) admit to wondering aloud a while ago (in the comments to Pej's blog) what exactly had happened in this divorce, since neither party was willing to talk. Which does not exactly translate into a legal right to know, especially since I'm not a voter in Illinois.

The "these records are usually public" logic apparently used by the judge didn't make sense to me, until I heard Slate's explanation of why they were sealed in the first place.

Saletan's piece sure makes it sound as if it's Clinton payback, though. (Am I the only one who thinks that between the Kerryisms and arguments like this one, Saletan is doing the Democrats more harm than good right now?) And it's a damn shame, since Barack Obama may be the one politician in the country who wouldn't have tried to get this stuff released, and now he's going to be associated with it.

Maybe the judge is a Democrat? That's the only reason for this that immediately springs to mind.

The judge in question was appointed to the LA Superior Court by then Governor Gray Davis in late December of 2002 just before the recall petition was certified. I seem to recall that a number of prominent non-Californian Democrats took part in trying to oppose the recall and it might be worth looking into whether the Chicago Democratic machine was owed a few favors by Davis.

Well, at least it won't change the election. Obama was going to win anyway.

Tell Ken Starr, his perversion is what brought this media prurience to such a fever pitch.

Mumblix,

There's your answer, Jane. No one does the Superiority Dance with more gusto than the Left.

Now there's a stupid statement. Like conservatives never strike smug superior poses. Geez. We have a Republican Party that makes pious claims of moral superiority a major part of its message, yet you believe this.

In any case, my comment was a reflection on human nature in general, not so much a statement of my own beliefs here. I actually don't object to Ryan's activities, as long as they involved adults acting voluntarily. It is precisely the right, not the left, that is scandalized by "unapproved" sexual behavior, unless, like Ryan, they're the ones engaged in it. If you're looking for people doing a "Superiority Dance," look there.

The biggest issue here is one of character. He convinced the IL (and national) GOP that there was nothing bad in there, that it was all about the kid and his needs. Rumors began that the documents had other things in there too. They asked Ryan to release them, and he refused. "What's he hiding," we all wondered, and the "giant media corporations" filed suit to find out. A judge decided, correctly, that parts of the file did not have to do with the kid and released those parts. Jack Ryan STILL refuses to admit or deny the allegations.

I believe I do have the right to know when the man who wants me to elect him Senator is a liar, and uses his child as a pawn to engage in those lies, and then refuses to own up when caught. Somebody who, even in 199? during his divorce, knew he wanted to run for political office, and was STILL pigheaded enough to not settle the case out of court so that these damaging allegations wouldn't be part of the (wait for it) PUBLIC RECORD. That is exactly who we don't want running the country.

Short answer: He's a Republican. "It's just about sex" and "Everyone does it" are valid defenses for the other party, not his. The same people gleeful about this are also the ones who believe that putting a collar on a detained enemy is far more heinous than beheading an innocent: We (the US and/or Republicans) who believe in a higher truth need to be punished for any behavior short of perfection, while others, (let's call them "realists" or "pragmatists" or "relativists") should be rewarded for any behavior above excessive drooling.

Why was it vital to the public interest?

The only good answer I've read comes from John Kass's column in the Chicago Tribune this morning:

"I don't care about his sex life. It's his judgment that worries me.

If the files had remained sealed, he had a slim chance of winning the election. Voters wouldn't have known. But his ex-wife would have known, and her friends and lawyers, and a few others in Hollywood.

And I'm not comfortable with only a select few holding what amounts to blackmail material over a senator who has the important task of recommending federal prosecutors and federal judges in Illinois, particularly in Chicago."

felixrayman: Don't change the subject. He was referring to Michael Moore's tactic of following public figures around with a camera to fluster and intimidate them. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Isn't there a whiff of selective indignation when a woman whose profession is primarily displaying her feminine charms (otherwise, why that catsuit?) going all 'icky-poo' over the idea of having sex in public?

Guess it proves when a woman says she doesn't want to have sex in public, she really means she doesn't want to have sex in public WITH YOU, Jack.

Isn't there a whiff of selective indignation when a woman whose profession is primarily displaying her feminine charms (otherwise, why that catsuit?) going all 'icky-poo' over the idea of having sex in public?

Nope, not at all.

1. It wasn't 'sex in public', it was sex at a private sex club, in company. There is a difference. Sex in public is illegal. Sex in a private sex club is not.
2. The records were opened to prove that there was no spouse or child abuse. They prove this.
3. Morality. Jack Ryan wanted to have sex with Jeri Ryan, his wife. Please elaborate on the immorality of this act. His desire to have sex in company, according to these documents was never fulfilled. Therefore, he is being excoriated for what amounts to asking his wife to carry out one of his sexual fantasies. What husband has not asked his wife to live up to his fantasies?

To put this in perspective, no crime was commited, no immoral act was undertaken, and no one really needed to see into these documents as, despite leftist hysteria, there really was nothing to see.

How dare they question Jack Ryan's patriotism!

I wonder if a motivator for this is simply celebrity gossip. If Jack Ryan had been married to an ad executive, even if she were hot, I don't think there would have been the same salacious desire to see the records. Noone here in Illinois really thought there was any child abuse. But some good old-fashioned divorce mudslinging involving a buxom blonde . . . can't pass that up. Seriously. I'm sure some people had a political motivation to get the records out, and the "public's right to know" is obviously a childish excuse for the media, but the whole issue would not have had the traction if not for 1) Blair Hull's similar problem in the primaries, coupled by 2) Jeri Ryan's celebrity/hotness.

This is pretty pedestrian stuff. As others have noted, court records are generally public unless there's a very good reason to keep them private. Trade secrets, harm to minors, and the like qualify; embarrassing a politician doesn't. Press bias? Give me a break! If there's one thing reporters love, it's a good sex scandal. They may enjoy it more when it hurts the other party, but they're going to run with it either way. There's just nothing surprising about this story. It's unfortunate, but if you've been a party to court proceedings and there's embarrassing stuff in the case file, you should expect that stuff to come to light if you're running for office. If you're not prepared for that, you shouldn't run.

"He wanted to have sex with his wife in public, without the public knowing he was trying to have sex with his wife in public. Will the intrusions on Ryan's privacy never cease?"

That may be the funniest line I've read on this site (I don't care if it's technically correct - close enough).

FWIW - I'm pretty sure that the IP rules were a recent change (early '90s, I think). The general presumption is that everything is open, even in civil court.

As a general rule, all court pleadings are public documents unless the file is ordered sealed by the court or a protective order is granted. Sealing of court files is extremely rate. The overwhelming majority of court files are open for inspection and copying by anyone who walks into the clerk's office. While it is true that motions for protective order are often graned in IP and/or trade secrets cases, there is a pretty strong presumption NOT to make a court filing non-public in general. Sometimes court files are sealed to protect a minor, for example in a sexual abuse case. In Ryan's case, I really don't see the outrage, although I honestly don't care to know this stuff. He was doomed to lose to Obama anyway. This simply confirms it.

No one should get to unilaterally decide what criteria other people are allowed to use in deciding their votes. If Galt thinks information like this is irrelevant, she is free to ignore it. But in my opinion the press should report anything that matters to a significant number of people.

Nor do I agree that this information is irrelevant to his candidacy. I believe it reflects badly on his character. I can see arguing that it shouldn't make a major difference, but no difference at all? Even Galt concedes the information is unsavory.

Everybody seems to take it for granted that "court filings are public documents." I'm not so sure that is true for divorce pleadings. I don't think they are routinely public, at least not in all jurisdictions. I'm a lawyer in Iowa, and while I don't do divorces, I'm pretty sure divorce filings are not routinely open to the public.

This elevation of the "public's right to know" into some sort of quasi-constitutional corollary to the First Amendment is a bunch of nonsense. Tell it to the framers, who wrote the Constitution in a closed convention.

Jack Ryan's sexual peccadillos are no more the public's business than Bill Clinton's or Gary Hart's, and I say that seriously, not tongue in cheek. Running for public office shouldn't require one to lower one's pants and spread one's legs to all and sundry because "the public has a right to know." The fact that we now effectively require this demeaning openness probably has something to do with the quality of candidates we now get, since most people with any sense of dignity won't put up with it, and therefore never put their hat in the ring in the first place.

Tom:

The "quality of the candidates" argument is bogus. Almost anyone who competes in an election for a seat in Congress or the Presidency is, almost by definition, pretty skeezy. It's a lot of power, and if you aren't willing to cut the odd corner, tell the odd lie, or take the odd stupid but popular position, you aren't going to win. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Information like this reminds us that our leaders bear watching, if only b/c they're likely to make us laugh.

The reason for keeping court files public isn't to let the public watch the litigants, it's to let the public watch the judges. Family courts are right up there with criminal courts in their power to screw up people's lives. Best not to let too much of that process go on behind closed doors, I think.

By this time it's almost over, and Ryan is on his way out, but no one here is emphasizing the important point: these were Jeri Ryan's allegations in a custody petition after the divorce. The reasons cited for the divorce in that petition (in which Jeri was the plaintiff) were that Jack Ryan was bossy and she got tired of it. A year after the divorce was final, in this custody petition, Jeri brought forth these allegations as part of an effort to show that Jack Ryan was the party responsible for the marital breakdown. IE, she said this to improve her position. Jack Ryan denied her allegations. No one has brought forth any proof. And that is all we have.

I haven't really followed the story, but my impression was that Ryan didn't offer much of a denial (i.e., he said something more like "I didn't do anything wrong" than "I didn't do what she said I did").

Jack:

If you doubt the veracity of the basic story, you don't know anyone who is/was a successful investment banker. Jeebus. In that context, I think asking your wife to have sex with you in front of strangers is a touching tale of monogamy and togetherness.

(Mild hyperbole alert - don't get your pinstripes in a bunch).

Bernard and SomeCallhimsomething - Your hate continues...... Does anything drive your thinking besides the hate for 'pubs?

Thank you Mumblix for pointing it out so clearly @ 6/24/04 1:16 AM

BTW, I doubt the veracity of the story as I've seen personally what passes for facts in a divorce case as the ex's duke it out to "better their position" and have more time with the children. My ex went at lengths (hours) to say I have road rage. I showed my 10 year driving record which was clean and subpoenaed a coworker to testify who had ridden with me on the job for 3 years and 6,000 miles. Divorce court is ridiculous. And the proceedings shouldn't play any role on if he can be elected or not (unless he is found to have broken the law like Bill Clinton did - perjured himself and had his law license stripped by Democrat Judge Susan Weber Wright.)

Pat in CA,

Please reread what I said. I don't give a damn about these allegations. It seems that the people who care the most are the Republicans in Illinois who are forcing Ryan off the ballot. They are the ones expressing outrage over his behavior, not Democrats.

Why does the Republican leadership want Ryan off? Because he can't win, I guess. Why not. Surely not because he's going to lose hard-core Democratic votes over the revelations. He wasn't going to get those anyway. No. He's going to lose Republican votes. So again, it's Republicans who are hanging Ryan out, not Democrats.

Isn't that evidence that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are being judgmental here? And while I'm asking, let me ask this: if these allegations disqualify a candidate in the eyes of his own party (that's the Republican party, recall), then why shouldn't they have been made public? Doesn't that mean they are relevant to his qualifications for office, and aren't voters entitled to information that is relevant to a candidate's qualifications? So aren't the Republicans (not Democrats, Republicans) being inconsistent in:

a. Condemning the revelations as irrelevant
b. Throwing Ryan off the ticket because of them

No, Pat, I don't hate Republicans, but I do intensely dislike the sanctimonious prigs who are so thick on the ground in the Republican Party.

Who is are those people you refer to Bernard?

Most conservatives I talk to vote Republican because the Libertarian party isn't strong enough. I've never seen a sanctimonious Republican.

You may think some of us are... only because we tend to defend ourselves (and this country) from irresponsible allegations and charges by you liberals. We don't even agree with Bush 50% of the time because he is so moderate and centrist yet we end up defending him from you haters.

We actually have a decent person in the White House who is isn't catering to the right or left. Because of that he is catching flack from all sides. AM radio hasn't been kind to Bush if you don't know it.

The way you talk about the 'pubs as you do..... you coulda fooled me that you don't hate them. You carry on with every post as if they are the scourge.

.... Just imagine if someone to the right of Republicans (like Libertarians) actually got into office. Your head would explode. :)

By the way, Check this spending comparison out. Shows how little difference there is between Dems and 'Pubs.

Link Here

The Republicans been smearing and vilifying Democrats for decades. When we finally start to fight back you start crying about fairness. Where were you when Clinton was being impeached over nothing? Screw you. If you don't like it, nominate some candidates who aren't sociopaths.

All things being equal, I would prefer to vote for a candidate with good moral character. The manner in which this information became public may be untoward, but it would inspire me to find another candidate.

Well, Obama just won the election... but it was an election he was going to win anyway.

Except, now, he won it kinda cheaply. Due to a sex scandal. Not on his own merit.

Whomever runs against Obama next time has a leg up.

Simple. Someone knew what was in there and figured it would knock Ryan out of the race and therefore handicap the Republicans. Machiavelli, not John Q. Public, determined the proper course of action.

The Republicans been smearing and vilifying Democrats for decades. When we finally start to fight back you start crying about fairness.

Considering that not a single Republican has run in an election in the past forty years without Democrats publically calling him/her a racist, sexist, envirnomental rapist, fascist, poor hater, theocrat, crony capitalist, etc. that's a rather rich statement.

I don't know that Orbitron is right on the initial set of facts - most of the writing about this that I've seen indicates that it was the 'Pub Party that was really troubled by the revelation. Why would the Dems care - Ryan was going to lose by like 20 points anyway. Hell - I still think it's cool that he was married to Jeri Ryan. Seriously though - we like sex (b/c we've had it :) ), and I can't believe there were that many Dems who cared about this at all.

As for MAKnight's assertion - has there been a Republican who wasn't " a racist, sexist, envirnomental rapist, fascist, poor hater, theocrat, crony capitalist, etc." in the last 40 (I'd say 25 or 30) years? Some, of course. And while those charges might be made against those few as well, they don't seem to stick. No one thinks William Weld is a racist, do they? I'd guess the same with Tommy Thompson. A lot of us supported Guilliani for mayor. In fact, there are a lot of 'Pubs that center Dems like a lot. You'd have a mortal lock on the Presidential election right now if you had nominated McCain instead of this moron in 2000. But instead, the ugly (and racist) whisper campaign began in South Carolina, and Bush won.

Don't hate us because you're unwilling to make the right choices about who represents you.

As usual, many of the comments here at Asymmetrical Information have increased my understanding of the issue. I really enjoy reading both the posts of Jane and Mindles and the many intellegent comments. Some of the comments, however, bothered me. Jane asked

What was the reasoning behind unsealing these records, and why was it vital to the public interest that this man's marital difficulties be smeared across the headlines?

As far as I can tell, the reason that the media companies asked for the records to be unsealed was that they had decent, credible sources telling them that Ryan was lying about their content. That's a good reason to apply for sealed records to be unsealed. Is Kerry making any specific, public statements about his divorces which anyone thinks might be untrue?

Comments are Closed.