Does anyone know what the ruling was on the motion to unseal Trump's divorce proceeding,

[pnwmom]

which was supposed to be heard in New York on August 22?

This was the motion put forward by the NYT and Gannett newspapers.

Here is the August 11th motion, which contains a lot of background.

(I don't know how to find the decision from August 22.)

http://static.politico.com/52/3c/4e17d1ba4d8a89254bb71460b28e/trumpdivorceunsealpdf.pdf

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-times-gannett-sue-donald-ivana-trump-divorce-papers-article-1.2747858

The American public has a right to know if Ivana Trump really did accuse her husband of raping her during their 1990 divorce proceedings, two news outlets argued Thursday when they asked a state court to take the unusual step of unsealing Donald Trump's matrimonial file.

Lawyers for the New York Times and the Gannett newspaper chain argue in papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court that allegation — which Trump has denied — and the mogul’s views about women and the history of how he has treated the women in his life are issues in the presidential campaign for the twice divorced Republican nominee.

Divorce records are almost always sealed by law in New York State courts but the lawyers argue that judges have the power to open the record in "special circumstances" and Trump's campaign — including his statements about rival Hillary Clinton’s marital woes — make it necessary for a judge to pull back the curtain for voters.

The filing notes that a 1993 biography of Trump reported that Ivana Trump told friends that her husband had "raped" her in 1989 during a fit of rage, but during the current campaign, she issued a statement saying her words should not be "interpreted in a literal or criminal sense."

[Agschmid]

1. Nope, sorry.

[jberryhill]

2. You can check the docket yourself

I'm on my phone at the moment, but the NY docket system is here:

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/etrackAcctCreateInitialConfirm

One thing to note is that in NY, the name "Supreme Court" does not mean what it means elsewhere. A "Supreme Court" is any of various trial level courts.

[pnwmom]

4. Thanks, but I tried that and couldn't figure out the system.

If you're ever on a computer I'm sure you could do a better job of navigating this.

[jberryhill]

5. I'll have a look tomorrow

I'd bet a summary denial, but that's just my wild ass guess.

[pnwmom]

7. Yeah, I'm guessing it was denied, too. But thanks for checking this out. n/t

[Mozzonozzo]

3. Just saw a story on politico

Looks like they both filed briefs to stop the unsealing...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-ivana-divorce-records-228119

[jberryhill]

6. I'd bet on the court denying the press motion

[NanceGreggs]

8. Those records should remain sealed.

We have all had ample opportunity to see what kind of man Trump is - in spades. And undoubtedly even more will come to light over the next two months.

Probable tax fraud, shady business dealings, the Trump University scam, stealing from charities - the list goes on.

Adding "and he was also a lousy husband" is pretty pointless - and will come as no shocking revelation to anyone.

Why delve into a 26-year-old divorce record when what the man is saying and doing right now is far more egregious - and actually has political implications?

There are much bigger fish to fry - fish that will be ignored if the MSM gets hold of juicy he said/she said gossip.

If those records are released and circulated, Trump could plow down a hundred bystanders on 5th Avenue with a tank, and CNN et al wouldn't interrupt their three-week-long, 24/7 coverage of Donald & Ivana's stormy marriage and its aftermath - because that's what sells.

[pnwmom]

9. Did you read the motion? I think they made a good argument. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

10. No, I didn't read it.

And I don't care what argument was made.

We already know what kind of man Trump is - there is no further insight to be gained by looking at what went on in a 26-year-old divorce proceeding.

Ivana Trump is not a candidate for anything. What of her right to privacy? Or should that be dismissed out-of-hand because inquiring minds want to know?

Trump demonstrates, day-in/day-out, 24/7 who he is, what he stands for, and what he has done and continues to do - things that have REAL legal and political implications.

Why try to hook minnow when the lake is literally spilling over with much bigger fish to fry?

[BlueMTexpat]

11. While I believe that all the points

you make are excellent ones - and am also of the same opinion as jberryhill that there will ultimately be a summary dismissal in this situation - I am glad that the suit was filed, if only for it to act as a minor gadfly to Trump while it remains in the news.

For a man who can be goaded with a mere tweet, a lawsuit provides even greater bait.