(The Bigheart Times is not fond of writing editorials, but this week came across a topic it feels is of import to the general public. Of enough interest that we are also publishing it online.)
Every Friday, I go to the courthouse to pick up the criminal filings for the previous week and to jot down the civil filings. I check a lot of stuff that never makes it into the paper: Protective orders, probate cases, and small claims, just in case some story might present itself.
Last Friday, I did my routine, and came across a mysterious divorce filing: Osage County Case No. FD-11-142. It is sealed. Hermetically. No names, not even those of lawyers. Just a case number. Not being one to suffer secrecy in records that should be public, I ferreted out whose divorce it was: That of a wealthy Tulsa couple. He made a fortune in the oil business and she has a ranch in Osage County. More on that next week. In fairness, I am not going to ID them by name until I have the chance to talk to the judge who sealed it, and the lawyer who asked that it be sealed, and both were out of town on Monday and Tuesday. The divorcing couple are not well known in Osage County, I can promise you that.
No matter who they are, however, the secrecy doesn’t pass the smell test. If John Q. Public’s divorce is a public record, so should the divorce of the Missus and Captain O. Industry.
Michael Minnis, the lawyer who represents the Oklahoma Press Association and its members – including The Bigheart Times – said that this affront to open records is becoming more common. And it’s wrong.
“Trials and court filings should not be filed under seal,” Minnis said. “Courts, courthouses, and judicial proceedings are public venues. Nonetheless, some courts have held that in very limited circumstances portions of trials or portions of case filings can be temporarily kept under seal.
“However, the initial filings should never be filed under seal.”
There are good reasons that some court records are sealed: Matters involving children or proprietary business information, i.e. trade secrets. I am hard pressed to think of any other examples.
The idiotic thing about secrecy is that it only serves to excite interest. Had this divorce been filed openly, it would have been a mere blip on the radar and passed without notice. Now it has become a looming question: Why are the Zs exempt from the rules that the rest of us must live by, and what do they have to hide? Most likely, they have nothing to hide (except their wealth) – but we don’t know that when they are doing in secret what the rest of us must do in public.
Comments