# Chicago Tribune and the Ryan Divorce
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-tribune-and-the-ryan-divorce/252256
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [June 25, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-tribune-and-the-ryan-divorce/252256 "2004-06-25T23:17:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Julius\_Henry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Julius_Henry)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-tribune-and-the-ryan-divorce/252256/1 "2004-06-25T23:17:12Z")
What was the Chicago Tribune’s legal argument for getting access to the Ryan v. Ryan sealed divorce papers?
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-tribune-and-the-ryan-divorce/252256/2 "2004-06-26T00:17:50Z")
[http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html](http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Media Attorney Argues To Unseal Ryan Divorce Records
> Attorney Represents Chicago Tribune, WLS
>
> POSTED: 5:21 pm CDT May 10, 2004
> UPDATED: 5:50 pm CDT May 10, 2004
>
> LOS ANGELES, Calif. – Within 20 days, a Los Angeles superior court judge will decide whether to recommend that portions of Illinois Republican Jack Ryan’s divorce papers should be unsealed.
>
> News media attorney Susan Seager argued Monday that the candidacy of Ryan for a U.S. Senate seat has made it more imperative to unseal records of his divorce and child-custody dispute. She said the judge in the Los Angeles case sealed the documents in 2000 and 2001 but ordered the sealing decisions be re-examined if any new facts arose. Seager said the new fact is the millionaire investment banker’s nomination to the Senate.
>
> Seager, representing The Chicago Tribune and television station WLS, asked that the court unseal as much as possible of the record while still protecting the interests of the Ryans’ 9-year-old son. Media attorneys argue the courts should unseal parts of the record that don’t involve the boy because it’s improper to keep them secret just because they might embarrass Ryan.
---
### Author:  [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2004, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-tribune-and-the-ryan-divorce/252256/3 "2004-06-26T01:14:25Z")
Court documents are public record. The norm is that they are unsealed absent some reason to seal them. The divorce records were originally sealed because a Trekkie was stalking Jeri Ryan and the judge agreed that the information in the documents could be used by the stalker to further harass her.
---
### Author:  [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-tribune-and-the-ryan-divorce/252256/4 "2004-06-26T01:49:55Z")
Editorial: [Why the Tribune went to court](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0406250049jun25,1,2489047.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed) (registration required, sorry)
> [@](#):
>
> Here’s why the Tribune went to court.
>
> In Cook County, there were more than 191,000 domestic relations cases filed from 1999 to 2003. Only 32 of those cases were sealed from public view. If you sought a divorce in Cook County, or just about anywhere else in the nation, chances are your records are wide open to scrutiny by anyone–friends, neighbors, reporters. You cannot have them closed to scrutiny.
>
> This nation has a long tradition of open courts. There’s good reason for that. A court shrouded in secrecy is a court far more at risk to be corrupted or abused, a court that is more likely to favor those who are wealthy, powerful or politically connected.
>
> That is why court files are open, unless a compelling interest tips the balance in favor of secrecy. Juvenile Court records are one common exception. Divorce records are not.
It continues, basically saying that voters deserve to have a wide variety of information about their candidates and that it is unfair and unjust to seal records that should be public.
I feel compelled to note a couple other points -
1. The _Chicago Tribune_ is the Republican-leaning daily in this city; it’s the _Chicago Sun-Times_ which is the Democrat-leaning one. So this was not politically motivated.
2. The front-runner Democrat in the primary for this seat was hit by his own divorce records being unsealed. After it was revealed that his then-wife had asked for an order of protection, and had accused him of hitting her and threatening her, his approval rating dropped, and he came in third in the primary.
---
### Author:  [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2004, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-tribune-and-the-ryan-divorce/252256/5 "2004-06-26T13:19:48Z")
Not trying to turn this into a debate, I’d like to ask a follow-up question…
Has the former Mrs. Ryan ever gone on record about her ex-husband’s candidacy? IOW, has she said “He’s a dick, don’t vote for him.” or anything like that? I would think her statements would have been all over the Illinois media. But then again, she’s out in California, where Illinois politics have little bearing on her life, so it’s possible that no one thought to ask her…
---
### Author:  [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-tribune-and-the-ryan-divorce/252256/6 "2004-06-26T16:19:25Z")
Mr. Ryan has withdrawn from the Senate race, so most of the meaning has drained out of this thread. If you want to hang around and sift the ashes, feel free.
---
### Author:  [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chicago-tribune-and-the-ryan-divorce/252256/7 "2004-06-26T16:25:27Z")
For **HeyHomie** :
> [@](#):
>
> _[Chicago Sun Times, June 26, 2004](http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-ryan26.html)_
> Jeri Ryan issued a statement Friday saying “it is discouraging and disappointing that a private matter became public, as it in no way affected Jack’s ability to serve the people of the state of Illinois.”