Posted on 12/23/2004 12:55:26 PM PST by calcowgirl
Billionaire investor Ronald Burkle has persuaded the courts to shield from public view — at least temporarily — dozens of documents in his divorce file, arguing that a new state law requires trial and appellate judges to seal the records.
At a hearing Tuesday in Superior Court in Long Beach, Burkle's lawyers argued that the law, signed in June by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, requires sealing records that disclose financial assets in divorce cases on request of one of the parties.
Burkle's wife, Janet, opposed sealing the records.
The Los Angeles Times and Associated Press also opposed Burkle's motion, arguing that the new law is unconstitutional because it denies the public the right to important court records and impinges on a judge's ability to perform a document-by-document analysis before sealing records, as required by the 1st Amendment.
State legislators passed the law in April, gutting an unrelated bill about state employees and turning it into an amendment allowing either party in a divorce proceeding to close financial records, no questions asked.
The bill's backers said their goal was to prevent information in divorce files from being used in crimes such as identity theft and kidnapping.
The new law passed both houses unanimously as "urgency" legislation, meaning that it went into effect immediately. Opposition from a media lobbyist, who said his organization and others had successfully killed similar bills in the past, had little effect.
Schwarzenegger signed the bill June 7.
(snip)
In November 2003, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Roy L. Paul, who is presiding over the case, agreed to redact certain details from the divorce documents — such as credit card numbers — but ruled that the documents should remain public...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
An attorney representing Burkle, Martin D. Singer, said in a letter to The Times that any allegation of Burkle's involvement in the passage of the law is "outrageous in the extreme."
No surprise here, aRnold's election was convenient for a lot of the 'right' folks, as it turns out.
Burkle has shoveled more political 'donor' money than almost anyone else in California political history.
Just a bit, I'd say.
In February and March, Burkle, who had been a financial supporter of Democrat Gray Davis, donated $121,200 to Schwarzenegger. Of that money, $21,000 went to Schwarzenegger's reelection campaign — the maximum allowed to a candidate; the remaining $100,000 went to Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team, his campaign fund for ballot measures the governor favors.
How can this special interest garbage pass as "urgency" legislation? It boggles my mind.
In addition to his armored MB 600's and his Boeing 757?
I think he also calls himself a "fiscal conservative", LOL.
I heard that is the toughest car to sell. That only rappers have been buying them.
 |
Ron Burkle Director Ron Burkle is the founder and managing partner of The Yucaipa Companies, a private investment firm based in Southern California. Yucaipa is widely recognized as a leader in acquisitions, mergers and management of large retail and distribution companies. Yucaipa completed the merger of Fred Meyer, Inc., where Mr. Burkle served as Chairman, and The Kroger Company forming the largest supermarket company in the United States. Mr. Burkle is also the majority shareholder of Golden State Foods, the largest manufacturer and distributor of food products to McDonald's. Yucaipa is now the controlling shareholder of Alliance Entertainment Corporation, distributor of music, videos, DVDs, electronic games and with its acquisition of Digital on Demand, a leading distributor of digital entertainment content into retail environments. Mr. Burkle is a member of the Boards of KB Home Corporation (NYSE: KBH) and Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY). In partnership with Mario Lemieux, Mr. Burkle brought the beloved Pittsburgh Penguins from bankruptcy, making the two majority owners of the team and keeping the team in Pittsburgh. Mr. Burkle is Co-Chairman of the Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA; Trustee of the J. Paul Getty Trust; Member of the Board of the Carter Center; Trustee of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts; member of the Executive Board for the Medical Sciences at UCLA; Member of the Board of AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA); Member of RAND's Education Advisory Board; Member of the Board of Claremont Graduate University; Member of the Board and of the Executive Committee of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence; Member of the Board of the Children's Scholarship Fund; Founder of the National Urban League; Trustee of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Found and Chairman of the Boards of Trustees of The Ralphs/Food4Less Foundation and The Fred Meyer, Inc. Foundation. He has received honors and awards including: The AFL-CIO Humanitarian of the Year, The Los Angeles Urban League Whitney M. Young Award, The Los Angeles County Boy Scouts Jimmy Stewart person of the Year Award, APLA Commitment to Life and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor Man of the Year. |
Why does the public deserve the right to access to financial information of two parties who are divorcing?
How is that everyone's business in a divorce, but private before that?
Seems it should remain private upon request always.
I believe the argument has to do with judicial oversight and for the system to work, the public must believe the court's orders and policies are fair and free of political interference. The article is not focusing on that however.
Janet Burkle's attorney, Philip Kaufler, said that he believed Burkle had a hand in passage of the new law, but he could not cite direct evidence of Burkle's actively pushing the legislation. Burkle denies any role in the bill.
Ping. Another Kaufman and Broad associate in the news.
I think the judge can look at sealed record, but only the public and press can't.
It would be stupid if the Judge couldn't look. But as long as the judge can do his job, it is not the right of anyone to look at people's private records.
Burkle aside, there is no reason for divorce records to be public. Use John Doe names for appeals.
Automatically sealed divorce records also eliminate the threats of litigation by acusation. (ie false child abuse charges to obtain custody.)
You missed the point.
Judicial oversight.... who watches the judge?
Those criminal cases get pretty embarrassing too, especially some of the white-collar type.
Let's seal the records on those too.
/sarcasm
Maybe I'm thinking this through wrong, but in a divorce case, the judge needs to see everything to come to conclusions that are propper for the circumstances.
The people and press at large should not have equal access to such information in the public realm.
If a judge can't look, how does a judge draw a proper conclusion?
Billionaire Burkle employs new law in bid to seal divorce records
By Tom ChorneauSACRAMENTO – Attorneys for billionaire investor Ron Burkle called on a judge to seal records related to his divorce proceedings, using a new state law that compels the court to close records that otherwise would be made public.
Media attorneys and lawyers representing Burkle's wife challenged the motion Tuesday, arguing the law is unconstitutional and that the public has a right to keep civil matters open.
Burkle, whose estimated personal wealth of $2.3 billion makes him one of the world's richest men, is a well-known political contributor who has given millions of dollars mostly to Democratic candidates and campaigns. But he's also given more than $200,000 to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his campaigns.
He and his attorneys declined to comment through a spokesman for his company, the Yucaipa Company.
Burkle's motion asked that the records, which contain information about his holdings and business dealings, be made confidential.
His wife, Janet Burkle, has accused the business of hiding millions of dollars in assets. Her attorneys said Burkle's use of the new confidentiality law puts a cloud of uncertainty over the proceedings.
"When these matters are public, other parties that might have familiarity with the people in the case might be able to shed light on the issues," said Phil Kausler, one of Janet Burkle's attorneys.
Susan Seager, an attorney representing The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times, said the new law provides a special exception for couples in divorce proceedings for confidentiality that is not enjoyed by other civil litigants.
"It's not a private matter," Seager said following the hearing before Judge Roy Paul in a Los Angeles County Superior Court. "Anyone walking into a public courthouse that asks for a dispute to be decided is not (involved in) a private matter."
The question of whether the public has a right to information that some might consider private is being asked in many courtrooms and legislatures.
"There's huge tension in civil cases about what should be considered public," said Elizabeth Garrett, director of the USC-CalTech Center for Law and Politics. "Divorce is a very private matter and there some who strongly believe it should be kept that way."
The law employed by Burkle's attorneys Tuesday was passed over the objections of media representatives, said Tom Newton, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publisher's Association.
"We didn't believe the rationale existed to make the change in the law," Newton said.
The bill languished without much support for one year in the Legislature before it was amended April 1 by former Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco.
After it was changed through what is called a "gut and amend" process by Burton, the measure passed both houses of the Legislature in May and was signed June 7 by Schwarzenegger.
Burton's amendment came just 17 days after a judge refused to grant a motion by Burkle to have many of the same record sealed by the court.
The origins of the privacy measure are not clear and neither lawmaker most involved with the legislation – Burton and the bill's Assembly sponsor, Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego – then an assemblywoman and now a state senator – returned phone calls Tuesday.
Kehoe earlier provided legislative analysts with her reasoning, including preventing "undue media publicity about divorcing couples with substantial assets."
With Burton carrying the legislation, it passed without a dissenting vote on the floor of the Senate and Assembly. The bill was declared an emergency, meaning it took effect immediately upon Schwarzenegger's signature.
"The pro tem made it happen," Newton said. "Why I don't know. I was there, it was over our objections."
I think private is good, but as you say, if it is seen the judge is pulling something, a master judge or unsealing the records THEN could happen.
I am not for newspaper access. Their nose doesn't belong in people's private business like that.
In criminal cases you accuser is the government.
In civil cases, specifically divorce cases, it is people suing people not the government.
Divorce files can be mined for social security numbers, credit card numbers, and other financial data that serves no public interest.
If records aren't public, there will never be anything to see, and therefore the oversight is absent. If they wanted privacy, they could have gone through arbitration or resolved their personal differences outside PUBLIC courthouses.
It is called the appelate courts. In extreme cases the Judicial oversight committees.
Even with public view, a judge can do anything and it will stand unless appealed.
Seems a muck. You should be able to use a judge, divorce and not have your records be a thing for public consumption.
Of course it would be nice if more people could arbitrate. Considering just the things I've seen, I'm surprised there are not far more attempted murders.
A divorce court is a house of woe.
I had a friend who's lawyer bill alone in the early 90s was 1/4 of a million.
I am not a fan of the whole thing at all.
The rappers are all buying Bentleys....the biggest customers for the Maybach have been the Saudis!
One guy in LA traded one in and had $100k depreciation in one year! Ouch!
There was this thing I read about all rappers buying them.
They can't sell them otherwise in the USA.
This is the firm that Jesse Jackson's "girlfriend" (mother of his last child) is working for.
100k in one year tells you the car stinks.
>>This is the firm that Jesse Jackson's "girlfriend" (mother of his last child) is working for.
Interesting. I just saw that... "a $10,000 per month consultant."
Jesse Jackson is also on the board of Yucaipa, and his brother Jonathan used to work. Quite the gathering.
Most states require mediation as party of the process. Even if the parties agree, the mediated agreement is made part fo the final divorce decree in order to make it part of the court record.
With the advent of electronic court reporting (microphone systems in the courtroom) a verbatim record can be created and made part of the sealed record.
If the parties have reached settlement outside of the court process then there is no reason to object to a court file being sealed.
Preliminary motions and hearings are often just jockeying for position for mediation negotiating points.
Most of the time even IN public, there is no court reporter making a verbatim record for subsequent transcription. This makes in very very very difficult to take any disputed ruling to an appellate court.
The germans buy the English Rolls Royce and then decide to introduce an auto that is SUPPOSED to be better than Rolls Royce.
Mabach has always seemed like a sucker car from the start. (ownership declares poor business sense)
The focus of the article was how this was conveniently passed as "urgency legislation" and just happened to benefit one of the largest political contributors in the state. In general, I am sick and tired of corruption in government.
Before this, I had given little thought as to whether these records should be public or not. I think there are arguments on both sides, but don't have the interest to fully research it to come up with an opinion. Again, it was not the subject of the article, nor the reason I posted it.
I agree with the corruption you cite. However the fact that this law can have benefits beyond this one insider should not be lost.
I suspect many of those legislators would like this for themselves.
Here is a thought, how many Kaleefornia citizens will use this divorce records privacy law to conceal a homosexual civil union divorce? Just thinking out loud so to speak.
take care.
>>>...take care.
You too! and Merry Christmas! :-)
Arnold and the Democrats are finally working together.
I think ALL divorce cases should be sealed as a matter of policy.
There is WAY too much litigation for intimidation BS that goes on with lawyers threatening legal extortion via embarassment.
There is no reason for divorce papers to be public.
ouch sorry, brian phart. I did not realise this was an old thread. Too much cafine today. ha ha
tak care
Sounds like John Kerry.
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.