Disclosure of Sealed Court Records is a No-No
Aside from the non-newsworthiness of the report of Chief Judge Nottingham's divorce proceedings, a few other details about the story are rummaging around in my brain this morning. Let's go to the Timeline. According to the Denver Post,
Nottingham filed for divorce in January 2006; it became final in July. ....Jaeger gave a divorce file to 9News, which first broadcast the story Thursday. A portion of the file was shared with The Denver Post by 9News.
It's clear that Marcie Jaeger not only provided records to the media, she is speaking with them directly. The reporters for both the Post and 9News disclose the contents of conversations with her. Yet, the Rocky Mountain News reports:
An Eagle County district court judge ordered the couple's divorce proceedings sealed, or unavailable to the public, in June. According to the order, Nottingham requested the file be sealed, and Jaeger did not object to his motion.
So, the action is filed in January, 2006. The files are sealed in June, 2007. There is a hearing on July 3, 2007 at which the parties testify, and the divorce becomes final. Is it a fair inference that Ms. Jaeger was unhappy with the court's ruling on the division of property or other economic issues and retaliated by going to the press? Did she divulge files or testimony that had been sealed? The answer to that may depend on both the accuracy of the media reports as to what she shared and the willingness of the media to disclose when she shared it. Disclosing sealed court files is a serious matter. It could constitute contempt of court. Of course, it may be that Ms. Jaeger tendered the divorce records to the media and spoke to reporters about them prior to June, 2007 and the media sat on the story until the divorce was final. Now that the story has made the front pages of both the Post and the News, I think it's a fair and important issue to raise and resolve. Will the Eagle County District Court or the District Attorney initiate an investigation on its own and issue a subpoena to 9News and the Denver Post to get to the bottom of this? Or will they sit back and do nothing and allow a member of the federal judiciary, and by extension, the federal court system to be impugned by a disgruntled ex-wife who appears to be pursuing a personal vendetta?
Comments
Submitted by ExPat ExLawyer (not verified) on Sat, 2010-07-17 11:07.
Jeralynn Merrit sure does some serious judicial butt kissing. She should disclose that she needs to so her clients get a fair shake, and that judicial scum will indeed retaliate if you do otherwise. Plus there are ethics rules that limit an attorney's ability to criticize the court.
While most ethics violations will be ignored, those involving court criticism are vigorously enforced.
Submitted by Kay Sieverding (not verified) on Tue, 2007-08-14 18:55.
If the FBI went to Marcie Jeager then what she told the press was that she was contacted by the FBI. It's not like she took their financial records and published them. I think that what happened the weekend starting 9/2/05 affected me and my lawsuit which was transferred to Judge Nottingham after some discussion involving Lloyds of London and David Brougham. I have a right to know if they talked about me that weekend at the Diamond Cabaret and whether David Brougham, Christopher P. Beall, Kevin Bennett, Traci Van Pelt, and other people in court on Friday, asking Judge Nottingham to put me in jail without charging me with breaking a law or letting me have an evidentiary hearing or confront my accusers and against the Supreme Court's direction in Vuitton. And that can't be secret because I filed motions in both the district court and the circuit court to restrain from publication about the matter and the court refused.
Submitted by Kay Sieverding (not verified) on Tue, 2007-08-14 18:58.
I have a right to know if the defendants in my case who appeared in court on 9/2/05 in front of Judge Nottingham without a disinterested prosecutor as required by the Supreme Court in Vuitton went with Judge Nottingham to the strip club, talked to him there, or paid for him on 9/2, 9/3/05 or 9/4/05...since he paid on 9/5/05
Submitted by Robin Hood (not verified) on Mon, 2007-08-13 16:20.
"Or will they sit back and do nothing and allow a member of the federal judiciary, and by extension, the federal court system to be impugned by a disgruntled ex-wife who appears to be pursuing a personal vendetta?"
The federal judiciary has already been impugned by Judge Nottingham's public conduct, disclosed in open court. The fact that the file was sealed does not change the fact that the conduct in question occurred.
Submitted by Robin Hood (not verified) on Mon, 2007-08-13 16:18.
Is it a fair inference that Ms. Jaeger thought she got a raw deal, on account of the possibility that judges have a tendency to cover one another's arses? You bet. And is it relatively likely that she got a raw deal? Again, you bet! Senior District Court Judge John Kane recently spilled the beans to the WashPost:
"For example, a federal judge, John Kane (who gave me permission to quote his e-mail), wrote, "I've been a district judge for 29 years and think the federal judicial house has brought this legislation on itself." He sat on the 10th Circuit Judicial Council when the first complaint about a judge came up for consideration: A district judge was trying to coerce counsel into establishing a library on product liability cases in honor of the judge.
Judge Kane's e-mail is worth quoting at length. He voted for discipline. The vote was 3 to 3, "and so the Chief Judge voted against sustaining the complaint because it was the first such complaint and he thought a close vote was too slender a reed upon which to proceed. As we were leaving the meeting, one of the judges who had voted to dismiss collared me and said, 'John, think about it. The next time it could be you or me. We've got to stick together.' "
Kane added, "I've recently heard of a number of judges who ruled on cases involving companies in which they owned an interest, yet nothing was done about it. The point is that the current system is a 'kiss your sister' operation that hasn't worked and won't as long as judges are covering one another's butts. The present system is ineffectual and I think that could be demonstrated by the very sorry record."
Ronald D. Rotunda, "The Courts Need This Watchdog," Washington Post, Dec. 21, 2006 at A-29.
If what you suspect is true, then good on Marcie Jaeger for fighting back!!!
Submitted by Robin Hood (not verified) on Mon, 2007-08-13 16:12.
As one who has successfully unsealed court files, I find the irony here absolutely delicious. If you are an attorney, you know that anything that the government has that is sealed and of any value will ultimately be disclosed, ethics be damned.
As one who has tried to get attorneys and judges disciplined for patently unethical behavior up to and including subornation of perjury, and who had a judge recused on grounds that there was evidence he took a bribe, all I can say about your outrage is "Pshaw!" The contempt power is used so sporadically and politically that even if it were invoked against Nottingham's ex, it would constitute selective prosecution.
