The skinny on Richardson’s divorce
March 31, 2008 at 1:59 pm by Scott Henry in NewsHouse Speaker Glenn Richardson has been criticized for having his divorce decree sealed from public view, but that censure is somewhat misplaced. That’s because the speaker is not actually divorced — or at least wasn’t when the court documents were sealed.
The explanation we heard from a knowledgeable House member is that the documents in question do, indeed, relate to divorce proceedings. But the Richardsons’ divorce has not yet been finalized.
It’s not uncommon for parents to ask a judge to seal divorce proceedings in order to protect their children, as may have been the Speaker’s objective. But rather than take his chances at persuading a randomly assigned judge — as you or I would have to do — Richardson apparently used his clout to steer his case to a former law partner who was inclined to give him a friendly ruling.
In legal circles, that’s called “judge shopping” and while it may not be, strictly speaking, illegal, it would certainly be considered an ethical violation on the part of both the shopper (Richardson) and the shoppee (Paulding Superior Court Judge Jim Osborne).
It will be interesting to see the result of a motion filed by ethics watchdog George Anderson claiming that the Richardsons’ file was improperly sealed. Even if a court sides with Anderson — and, to us, this seems a no-brainer — the case would likely be reassigned to a new judge who could well decide to keep the documents under seal.
Inquiring minds may have to wait a while longer to inspect the Speaker’s dirty laundry.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
So the AJC was wrong when it reported that “House Speaker Glenn Richardson and his wife filed for divorce, completed the dissolution of their marriage and got court records of the proceedings sealed — all in a single afternoon last week.” Right?
March 31st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Glad you asked, Ken. Yes, that statement was wrong – as the AJC itself a few days later in a story titled, “Status of speaker’s divorce in doubt.” The follow-up went on to pin the blame on the judge, noting that his order described the divorce as final. The confusion, however, serves to reinforce the argument for keeping such records public. The AJC wouldn’t have made that error if it had been able to read the documents. And it could lead to a lot of confusion – amusing in some cases, but confusion nonetheless – if sealed records prevented people from knowing whether their prospective wife or husband was still married to someone else.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Seeing you guys discuss your editing in public is a little like watching sausage being made, know what I’m saying? It’s kind of disgusting.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:06 am
“Judge shopping” eh? LMAO. To you and me that’s called “bribery.”