Serial sexter Anthony Weiner’s been exposed again.
This time a Manhattan judge has yanked a confidentiality caption that was shielding the disgraced pol’s divorce case with his soon-to-be ex-wife, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, from the public. Documents that are sealed usually have some sensitive information in them that cannot get out to the public. However, in Weiner’s case it is obvious there is no sensitive information that needs to hidden from the public. Any minor victim of Anthony Weiner will not be listed in any public record because of their age. Weiner’s criminal history does not fall under confidentiality principles of law.
In California the judge must find certain factors in order to seal court documents such as an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record, the overriding interest supports sealing the records; a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
Therefore New York Judge must have used similar criteria and decided against sealing the records because Weiner’s divorce did not meet the criteria for non public disclosure
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Michael Katz has decided to remove the ”Anonymous vs. Anonymous” designation from the pending lawsuit. This probably was done because Weiner does not fall under the local protocol of needing anonymity under New York law
Weiner’s long-suffering spouse finally filed for the split in May, six years after photos of his crotch first leaked onto the internet — ultimately leading him to resign from Congress.
During their first divorce hearing last week, Abedin’s lawyer asked the judge to keep the case hush-hush.
“Because there is a child involved, we’d like to keep these proceedings secret to the extent your honor will allow,” attorney Amy Donehower said.
Their son, Jordan Zain Weiner, is 5. Abedin separated from Weiner last year after The Post published another crotch shot — this time with the couple’s then-toddler son in the photo.
The judge did not rule from the bench at the time, but expressed skepticism about the request.
“I appreciate the parties’ request to keep this as quiet as possible, but as a practical matter, it does not appear to me that despite your attempt to have this be anonymous, it’s particularly anonymous,” he said.
The first few rows of the courtroom gallery were filled with reporters.
Parties for the two sides did not immediately return calls for comment.
Weiner’s expected to be sentenced for sexting with a minor on Sept. 25. Oddly, I would think that Mr. Weiner would be more worried about the potential jail time he will spend as a result of his criminal sexting crimes that the issue of anonymity on the divorce records.