John Kerry's $8,000 bike

[Jay Beattie]

"Todd Kuzma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BD371072.227BE%[email protected]...
> in article [email protected], Mark
Hickey at
> [email protected] wrote on 8/4/04 8:09 PM:
>
> > OTOH, the same Illinois Democrats made hay by dragging out
that a
> > potential Republican candidate had propositioned (get
this...) his
> > wife (in some sort of raunchy club apparently).
>
> The Democrats basically said nothing about it. Barack Obama
called it
> irrelevant. The state Republicans were upset that Ryan had
lied to them
> about it, and they have been a bit gunshy since the Gov. Ryan
scandals. I
> think that they were afraid of another scandal, but the sad
part is that
> their search for a replacement candidate has been far more
embarassing that
> anything that Jack Ryan did.
>
> I didn't think Ryan's sex club story was a very big deal. It
certainly had
> nothing to do with whether he would have made a good Senator.
I think that
> the state Republican party over-reacted.

The funniest part about all of this is the state Republican
party's difficulty finding a replacement candidate. I think they
put a help wanted ad in the classifieds. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Ken Ferschweiler]

Mark Hickey ([email protected]) wrote:

: OTOH, the same Illinois Democrats made hay by dragging out that a
: potential Republican candidate had propositioned (get this...) his
: wife (in some sort of raunchy club apparently).

Well, actually, the way CNN reported it was that she alleged that he
"took her to sex clubs and asked her to engage in sexual activity in
front of other patrons." Apparently some of his constituents found
this to be at odds with his stance as a "family values" candidate.
I'm no expert in political science, but it seems to me that they may
have a point.

-Ken

 

[jim c]

Ken Ferschweiler wrote:
> Mark Hickey ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> : OTOH, the same Illinois Democrats made hay by dragging out that a
> : potential Republican candidate had propositioned (get this...) his
> : wife (in some sort of raunchy club apparently).
>
> Well, actually, the way CNN reported it was that she alleged that he
> "took her to sex clubs and asked her to engage in sexual activity in
> front of other patrons." Apparently some of his constituents found
> this to be at odds with his stance as a "family values" candidate.
> I'm no expert in political science, but it seems to me that they may
> have a point.
>
> -Ken
yeah but, you *have* seen the guys wife, right? (7 of 9 from startrek)

 

[Weisse Luft]

Ken Ferschweiler wrote:
> Mark Hickey ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> : OTOH, the same Illinois Democrats made hay by dragging out that a
> : potential Republican candidate had propositioned (get this...) his
> : wife (in some sort of raunchy club apparently).
>
> Well, actually, the way CNN reported it was that she alleged that he
> "took her to sex clubs and asked her to engage in sexual activity in
> front of other patrons." Apparently some of his constituents found
> this to be at odds with his stance as a "family values" candidate.
> I'm no expert in political science, but it seems to me that they may
> have a point.
>
> -Ken
yeah but, you *have* seen the guys wife, right? (7 of 9 from startrek)

The news of Jerry and Jack Ryan was LEAKED to the media from their SEALED divorce proceedings. Jerry did NOT want this information released and it should have remained SEALED. But the Democratic smear machine managed to get ahold of it.

Now how about Kerry's divorce papers???

Go Alan Keyes!!!

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 05:34:43 +1000, Weisse Luft
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> yeah but, you *have* seen the guys wife, right? (7 of 9 from startrek)
>The news of Jerry and Jack Ryan was LEAKED to the media from their
>SEALED divorce proceedings. Jerry did NOT want this information
>released and it should have remained SEALED. But the Democratic smear
>machine managed to get ahold of it.

Just because two people want material in a divorce sealed doesn't mean
that they are going to get their way. If you use the court for
business the default is that there has to be a compelling reason for
the information to be kept secret. In this case a judge rules there
was not.

JT

 

[Weisse Luft]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 05:34:43 +1000, Weisse Luft
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> yeah but, you *have* seen the guys wife, right? (7 of 9 from startrek)
>The news of Jerry and Jack Ryan was LEAKED to the media from their
>SEALED divorce proceedings. Jerry did NOT want this information
>released and it should have remained SEALED. But the Democratic smear
>machine managed to get ahold of it.

Just because two people want material in a divorce sealed doesn't mean
that they are going to get their way. If you use the court for
business the default is that there has to be a compelling reason for
the information to be kept secret. In this case a judge rules there
was not.

JT

There it goes again, the people exist for the benefit of the courts

The court records are to be SEALED unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Was its unwarranted release part of public safety, as in the case of child molesters? No? How about national defense? No? Was the information related to SEC action? No?

Then how is the personal dealings between two adults any part of the public sphere? And why was it released contrary to the wishes of the involved parties?

Just in case you forgot, the courts exist to serve the people. There is no term "using the court for business". Tripe.

 

[SMMB]

"Weisse Luft" <[email protected]> a écrit
dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...

> There it goes again, the people exist for the benefit of the courts
>

Your confusion follows :

> The court records are to be SEALED unless there is compelling evidence
> to the contrary.

This is nonsense. All documents filed with courts are open records, unless
a prior motion to seal has been granted by the presiding judge, and that
decision, were it rendered, remains subject to appeal.

> Just in case you forgot, the courts exist to serve the people. There
> is no term "using the court for business". Tripe.

One uses the courts for business regularly. It is not the tabernacle, you
know ...
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR

 

[Weisse Luft]

"Weisse Luft" <[email protected]> a écrit
dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...

> There it goes again, the people exist for the benefit of the courts
>

Your confusion follows :

> The court records are to be SEALED unless there is compelling evidence
> to the contrary.

This is nonsense. All documents filed with courts are open records, unless
a prior motion to seal has been granted by the presiding judge, and that
decision, were it rendered, remains subject to appeal.

> Just in case you forgot, the courts exist to serve the people. There
> is no term "using the court for business". Tripe.

One uses the courts for business regularly. It is not the tabernacle, you
know ...
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR

Sandy, if you knew of the case, you would know both parties had agreed to sealing the records. This isn't a public trust case, its PRIVATE. Just like Senator Kerry's divorce papers but the media isn't going to go fishing for an unsealing in this case. Another example of liberal bias in the media. Yes, it was the MEDIA that pushed for unsealing of the Ryan divorce documents.

 

[SMMB]

"Weisse Luft" <[email protected]> a écrit
dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...

> Sandy, if you knew of the case, you would know both parties had agreed
> to sealing the records. This isn't a public trust case, its PRIVATE.
> Just like Senator Kerry's divorce papers but the media isn't going to
> go fishing for an unsealing in this case. Another example of liberal
> bias in the media. Yes, it was the MEDIA that pushed for unsealing of
> the Ryan divorce documents.
>
You don't change anything here with your comments. The matter is public ;
the motion to seal (apparently consented to) may have been granted ; having
a right to public information, even when sealed, the press must have done
their legal best and obtained a reversal of the judge's orders. No, I don't
know the particular pleadings, but it is the vulturism in some corners of
the press, not their liberal or conservative leanings, that offends you,
apparently.

One can blame the press for intruding into personal matters, perhaps. In
other instances, private papers have been sought and obtained and published,
and the results have been monumentally important to the public.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR

 

[SMMB]

"Weisse Luft" <[email protected]> a écrit
dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...

> Sandy, if you knew of the case, you would know both parties had agreed
> to sealing the records. This isn't a public trust case, its PRIVATE.
> Just like Senator Kerry's divorce papers but the media isn't going to
> go fishing for an unsealing in this case. Another example of liberal
> bias in the media. Yes, it was the MEDIA that pushed for unsealing of
> the Ryan divorce documents.
>
You don't change anything here with your comments. The matter is public ;
the motion to seal (apparently consented to) may have been granted ; having
a right to public information, even when sealed, the press must have done
their legal best and obtained a reversal of the judge's orders. No, I don't
know the particular pleadings, but it is the vulturism in some corners of
the press, not their liberal or conservative leanings, that offends you,
apparently.

One can blame the press for intruding into personal matters, perhaps. In
other instances, private papers have been sought and obtained and published,
and the results have been monumentally important to the public.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR

 

[S o r n i]

Weisse Luft wrote:

> Another example of liberal bias in the media.

Only 92% of media reps at the DNC favor Dems, according to a recent poll
(taken anonymously, of course). You call that a BIAS?!?

Bill "shock et surprise, n'est-ce pas?" S.

 

[Jay Beattie]

"SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Weisse Luft"
<[email protected]> a écrit
> dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Sandy, if you knew of the case, you would know both parties
had agreed
> > to sealing the records. This isn't a public trust case, its
PRIVATE.
> > Just like Senator Kerry's divorce papers but the media isn't
going to
> > go fishing for an unsealing in this case. Another example of
liberal
> > bias in the media. Yes, it was the MEDIA that pushed for
unsealing of
> > the Ryan divorce documents.

When Clinton was getting reamed for his dalliance with Monica,
was that liberal bias in the media? How about Gary Hart, or even
Jimmy Carter and "lust in his heart" and the killer rabbit. The
fact is that the press will go after any titillating story. The
conservatives may get hit harder because they preach family
values and then get caught picking up 'ho's.

> >
> You don't change anything here with your comments. The matter
is public ;
> the motion to seal (apparently consented to) may have been
granted ; having
> a right to public information, even when sealed, the press must
have done
> their legal best and obtained a reversal of the judge's orders.
No, I don't
> know the particular pleadings, but it is the vulturism in some
corners of
> the press, not their liberal or conservative leanings, that
offends you,
> apparently.
>
> One can blame the press for intruding into personal matters,
perhaps. In
> other instances, private papers have been sought and obtained
and published,
> and the results have been monumentally important to the public.

The press objects to sealing orders more often than you might
think -- and so do other interest groups, often plaintiff's
attorneys who want to get information for the purpose of filing
similar lawsuits against the same defendant. If you are a
litigant, you have to assume that every filed document will
become a public record -- even in a marital dissolution case.
Like it or not, this is the essence of an open court. -- Jay
Beattie.

 

[Fx199]

>or even
>Jimmy Carter and "lust in his heart"



Oh yeah...BIG STORY there..<yawn>

(imbecile flush)

 

[bfd]

"Fx199" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >or even
> >Jimmy Carter and "lust in his heart"
>
>
>
> Oh yeah...BIG STORY there..<yawn>
>
Interestingly, with all the fussy about Kerry riding a Serotta, nobody ever
talks about Jimmy Carter and his wife riding their Rivendells:

http://dordude.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/carter.jpg

 

[Tom Sherman]

Jay Beattie wrote:

> "Todd Kuzma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BD371072.227BE%[email protected]...
>
>>in article [email protected], Mark
>
> Hickey at
>
>>[email protected] wrote on 8/4/04 8:09 PM:
>>
>>
>>>OTOH, the same Illinois Democrats made hay by dragging out
>
> that a
>
>>>potential Republican candidate had propositioned (get
>
> this...) his
>
>>>wife (in some sort of raunchy club apparently).
>>
>>The Democrats basically said nothing about it. Barack Obama
>
> called it
>
>>irrelevant. The state Republicans were upset that Ryan had
>
> lied to them
>
>>about it, and they have been a bit gunshy since the Gov. Ryan
>
> scandals. I
>
>>think that they were afraid of another scandal, but the sad
>
> part is that
>
>>their search for a replacement candidate has been far more
>
> embarassing that
>
>>anything that Jack Ryan did.
>>
>>I didn't think Ryan's sex club story was a very big deal. It
>
> certainly had
>
>>nothing to do with whether he would have made a good Senator.
>
> I think that
>
>>the state Republican party over-reacted.
>
>
> The funniest part about all of this is the state Republican
> party's difficulty finding a replacement candidate. I think they
> put a help wanted ad in the classifieds. -- Jay Beattie.

2002 was also a fiasco for Illinois Republicans, with their hopes for
electing a US Senator resting on name confusion (Durbin the Democratic
incumbent and Durkin the Republican challenger).

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

 

[Tom Sherman]

Weisse Luft wrote:

> ...
> The news of Jerry and Jack Ryan was LEAKED to the media from their
> SEALED divorce proceedings. Jerry did NOT want this information
> released and it should have remained SEALED. But the Democratic smear
> machine managed to get ahold of it....

Is the Chicago Tribune part of the Democratic "smear machine"?

P.S. It is Jeri Ryan, not Jerry Ryan.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 06:00:54 +1000, Weisse Luft
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>Just in case you forgot, the courts exist to serve the people.

The people are, in this case, the citizens of the state. Not just the
two Ryans. That's the key principle here.

> There
>is no term "using the court for business".

I meant to resolve their affairs. Not a legal term. But plain
English.

> Tripe.

Doofus.

JT

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 06:00:54 +1000, Weisse Luft
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The court records are to be SEALED unless there is
> compelling evidence to the contrary.

This is fundamentally wrong. It is a completely wrong interpretation
of the role of courts in our society.

Restate what you wrote about the opposite of how you wrote it and then
you'll have it right.

JT

 

[Tom Sherman]

jim c wrote:

> Ken Ferschweiler wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey ([email protected]) wrote:
>>
>> : OTOH, the same Illinois Democrats made hay by dragging out that a
>> : potential Republican candidate had propositioned (get this...) his
>> : wife (in some sort of raunchy club apparently).
>> Well, actually, the way CNN reported it was that she alleged that he
>> "took her to sex clubs and asked her to engage in sexual activity in
>> front of other patrons." Apparently some of his constituents found
>> this to be at odds with his stance as a "family values" candidate.
>> I'm no expert in political science, but it seems to me that they may
>> have a point.
>>
>> -Ken
>
> yeah but, you *have* seen the guys wife, right? (7 of 9 from startrek)

Here is a picture of former US Senate candidate Jack Ryan's former wife,
Jeri Ryan on a trike (cycling content):
<http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/jeriryan115.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

 

[Todd Kuzma]

Tom Sherman wrote:

> P.S. It is Jeri Ryan, not Jerry Ryan.


Hey, there's a lot of Ryans to keep track of. Most of them
the Illinois Republicans would like to forget: George Ryan,
Jim Ryan, and Jack Ryan. Jim Ryan was trying so hard to
distance himself from George Ryan that he eventually
campaigned as just "Jim!"

Todd Kuzma
Heron Bicycles
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, Il 815-223-1776
http://www.heronbicycles.com
http://www.tullios.com