Moving right along, I consider this pad to be one of the most architectually distinguished homes in the United States.
Posted on 05/10/2006 8:06:08 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has put the brakes on legislation that would require judges in some cases to censor personal and financial information from divorce records and is working to revise the bill.
Assembly Democrats have been working behind the scenes this week to modify the bill so that judges could keep their discretionary powers and preserve the public's access to trial records, said Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa.
"I believe we need to have an open as possible process in our judicial system," said Evans, who is among the lawmakers seeking amendments to the bill. "Openness in judicial proceedings in martial dissolution ensures fairness between the parties."
Women's organizations for months have opposed the fast-track effort to approve the bill. The groups say a wife could be shortchanged if a husband had an asset such as a banking account balance shielded from public view.
Nunez spokesman Steve Maviglio said the speaker held up a vote on the bill after other Democrats raised concerns about the measure. The Assembly may vote on the amendments as early as next week, he said.
At a committee hearing last month, the bill's author, Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, said individuals going through divorce proceedings shouldn't have to display checking account numbers and home addresses in public court. His office did not return a call Wednesday seeking comment.
Murray's bill would require a judge, at the request of one of the divorcing spouses, to edit out Social Security numbers, home addresses, banking information, annual salaries, income and net worth from court records.
If the Assembly approves the proposed amendments, a judge would decide whether the public's right to know outweighed the privacy request.
The Legislature in 2004 approved a broader bill that required judges to seal entire divorce records at the request of a spouse. However, a state appeals court struck down the law after the California Newspapers Publishers Association, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press challenged it.
Critics say the law was designed to help billionaire Ron Burkle, a major campaign contributor who was in the midst of divorce proceedings.
Another amendment under consideration would remove an urgency clause, which critics said would have helped Burkle, who is still litigating his divorce. The clause would make the bill effective immediately instead of next January if approved by lawmakers and signed by the governor.
Michael Robinson, executive director of the California Alliance for Families and Children, warned that lawmakers should tread carefully when legislating family civil proceedings.
"Part of the reason for that family respect for privacy is to keep people from publicly exploiting their family laundry in public as extortion or intimidation tactics," Robinson said.
Can't tell entirely from the article but it looks like a bad idea. Divorce proceedings will be handicapped if there isn't a fair accounting of marital property. Keeping some funds secret from the proceeding is a bad idea. Or maybe I just am reading it wrong.
Moving right along, I consider this pad to be one of the most architectually distinguished homes in the United States.
Sexist assumptions, chosen to justify their own hypocrisy... the whole basis of feminism.
If this was truly about privacy, and not about Burkle trying to hide his assets from his wife and the public, why would the law only apply in divorce cases?
Why wouldn't Murray be equally concerned with Civil Litigation where, I assume, there is much more financial information being disclosed?
It's just an example. Why not reverse the sexes noted in the sentence?
It works both ways. Think Liz Taylor.
Good point, and one I have thought about, but why should any financial information about an individual in any civil case be open to the public, without some compelling reason, opened pursuant to a court order? As it is, tax returns are protected. Why the difference between tax returns and financial statements, as a policy matter?
Because it would fail to make victims of women, such a reversal would never be made except to illustrate its absurdity. (As if rape laws were made to protect men against women...)
From what I have read (which makes sense to me), public disclosure is key in maintaining integrity in the judicial system. Open records is the only method that allows for oversight of the judges and the proceedings themselves. Without it, the system is open to more corruption and could result in one party not getting a fair trial and having little recourse to prove it. As I understood it, right of public access is the rule, and deviation from it must be established by an overriding interest of the parties. In principle, I just don't see someone's divorce or their assets rising to that level when it weakens the integrity of the system as a whole.
I've also read that things like Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, addresses, information on minor children, etc. are already regularly redacted from the record to alleviate privacy concerns. This bill seems to take that much further.
I'm not a lawyer, so I appreciate any thoughts others have. I just haven't seen a compelling argument that makes me believe this is a good idea.
LOL! Good point!
Great show.
Well, there is the right to appeal, and if someone familiar with the proceedings wants to file a complaint to discipline the judge, the records will be available for that. What you are positing is some media organization plowing through records to find some pattern of misconduct, for a news story. I just don't see the need myself.
Not really. I just believe in the design--that the Government is run by the people, not the other way around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.