Posted on 02/08/2010 10:56:37 AM PST by Upstate NY Guy
It's a little bit of "apples & oranges".
In the Edwards tape, it's release would presumably be based on a FOIA request. The FOIA statute is VERY limiting with respect to what kinds of personal information may be released under these requests.
As an example, you might divorce your wife and in that divorce proceeding, the judge might order both of you to counseling. That counselor's report might become part of the legal record of your divorce, but it would be HIGHLY unlikely I would be able to get my hands on that counselor's report via any kind of open-records act. The statute was designed to keep daylight on the activities of government, and not private citizens.
I can't say that I'm entirely familiar with the specific circumstances of the Tommy Lee-Anderson sex tape. But IIRC, Anderson/Lee sued someone that already was in possession of the tape. For whatever reason, the judge ruled against Anderson/Lee and allowed the tape to be commercially distributed.
I would add that if the Edwards tape ever did leak out (God forbid), I suspect Edwards/Hunter would face some of the same legal challenges that Anderson/Lee faced if they tried to limit the tape's commercial distribution.
I have not followed this very closely, but I believe I read that Young found the tape in his (Young’s) home, where the couple had stayed at some times. Does that give him any right to it?
What a bunch of creeps; all of them! Include the 'moving on' wife, Elizabeth in that assessment as well. And those now in charge of these tapes; which will almost undoubtedly, make their way into public light.
How utterly and contemptibly, degradingly and outrageously. . .STUPID!
Slate: Why Unseal Ryan's Divorce Papers? -Neither Jack nor Jeri wanted them unsealed. What gives? (Wednesday, June 23, 2004)
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.(the cause to unseal the records "just happened" to be when Jack Ryan was running against Barack Hussein Obama)
Wikipedia - Jack Ryan (politician)
Ryan hoped to succeed retiring Republican Peter Fitzgerald in the United States Senate. On March 16, 2004, he won the Republican primary, thus pairing him against Democrat Barack Obama. However, after his divorce records containing damaging allegations were unsealed and made public, he withdrew his candidacy on June 25, 2004, and officially filed the documentation to withdraw on July 29, 2004.Controversially, in 2004, Ryan had Justin Warfel (a campaign worker) follow his opponent, Barack Obama, throughout the day and record everything he did in public on videotape.[4] The tactic backfired when Barack Obama and others, including Ryan's supporters, criticized this activity.
How does one “recover” all digital copies?
There was commercial sale of the Columbine security camera footage.
Seriously, in any other jurisdiction besides one that is a wholesale arm of the corrupt Chicago Democrat political machine, those records would never have been unsealed. I'm sure the the judge ruled the way he did because there was something he didn't want exposed himself.
Right. Columbine was a public school - in other words, the provenance of the tape was the county (or state) itself; It was created as government property and is precisely the kind of material that was designed to be secured by the FOIA.
Also, that was direct evidence of a crime. To my knowledge, I'm unaware of any possible crime that may have actually been captured on the Hunter/Edwards sex tape, unless of course there's farm animals involved.
Maybe....uh...one digit at a time????
The sex tape and the bastard love child are the 2 bits of “evidence” of the sexual relationship with a paid staffer (who was receiving campaign funds as hush money).
There’s the crime.
Ummm, *we* elected a person who we know nothing about. (except what we’ve been led to believe)
Who has the goods on him?
There was nothing criminal in the Jack Ryan divorce papers. Two consenting adults going to adults only establishments (where they did not even engage in sexual activity).
Don’t know; good point. . .but do we know whether or not. . .she used a digital camera?
LOL. . .and for sure.
No. But, there was a candidate who was actively seeking elected office. The judge ruled - wrongly - that Ryan's participation in the political process waived his privacy rights.
The same merit was not found in forcing Barack Hussein Obama (candidate for POTUS) to release his long form birth certificate.
Again, the court has great latitude with respect to what it does or does not seal. I imagine that should a case ever proceed to trial, or be resolved in some other manner, a judge would most certainly seal a tape of such personal nature. If it never comes to trial, grand jury evidence - by statute - is exempted from FOIA request. In other words, it would be illegal to release the tape if it wasn't actually introduced at trial.
well, she was living with him as part of a cover up plan, does he have any right to her personal property? I don’t think so, especially in light of the highly personal nature. The fact the court has issued an injunction indicates an initial ruling that she is likely to prevail on the law.
I recall he said he found it while “cleaning up” the apartment. His best argument might be that she abandoned ownership but that is unlikely.
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.