« MPR POLL SHOWS DEAD HEAT IN GOVERNOR’S RACE | Home | BLOG: NYC SCHOOLS HAVE “NO RECORDS” ABOUT MARK DAYTON »
UPDATE ON DAYTON PUBLIC RECORDS
By Luke Hellier | August 31, 2010
What we know about Mark Dayton’s public records:
1. The records were done with Dayton’s ex-wife’s attorney but in consultation with Dayton’s attorney.
2. At yesterday’s press conference Dayton was asked about the records and he said they were sealed when the records show they were unsealed in April 2000.
2a. Update: I received the following update from Dayton’s spokeswoman about Dayton’s comments:
Mark hadn’t looked at his divorce papers in 10 years, and had forgotten they are no longer sealed. The court documents showing everything is unsealed are correct.
Thanks,
Katie
3. Common sense says that Dayton can still release his full public records to ensure full vetting for the election.
Check back with MDE for more on this story later today.
Tags: 2010 Governor
Topics: 2010 Governor | 36 Comments »
August 31st, 2010 at 10:34 AM
Luke:
I happen to know somebody with experience in divorce law. I asked them about it. The person’s answer was that the lawyer couldn’t have done what they did unless they had Mark’s approval.
Thus this file was cleaned up at Mark’s request
and it certainly looks like this information is as revelant as his tax records. Especially given the fact that he went and cleaned up the divorce file before he announced he was running for US Senate.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
August 31st, 2010 at 10:40 AM
“1. The records were done with Dayton’s ex-wife’s attorney but in consultation with Dayton’s attorney.”
How do you know that?
“2. At yesterday’s press conference Dayton was asked about the records and he said they were sealed when the records show they were unsealed in April 2000.”
Logic tells us that if they were unsealed, that at some prior point, they were sealed. That’s what Dayton said yesterday, and what Dayton said was true. According to the information this website has provided, the documents in question were not present in the file when it was unsealed. The records provided here show they were not unsealed in April, 2000.
“3. Common sense says that Dayton can still release his full public records to ensure full vetting for the election.”
Common sense tells us that Dayton cannot release documents he does not possess. According to this website, it’s Dayton’s ex-wife, or at least her attorneys, who are in possession of the documents. Why don’t you ask them for them? Bring a tracker along so we can see the video.
August 31st, 2010 at 10:47 AM
“The person’s answer was that the lawyer couldn’t have done what they did unless they had Mark’s approval.”
Sure the ex-wife’s attorney could have removed the documents without Mark’s approval. But I agree that would be unlikely. But what is also clear, is that there is no reason to think Mark has the documents, and that Luke was demanding documents from Dayton, he knew Dayton didn’t have.
“Thus this file was cleaned up at Mark’s request
and it certainly looks like this information is as revelant as his tax records.”
We don’t know that Mark requested the removal of the documents. That’s totally unfounded speculation.
“Especially given the fact that he went and cleaned up the divorce file before he announced he was running for US Senate.”
This is contrary to the facts as they have been stated here. It was the ex-wife’s attorney, not Dayton’s attorney, who removed the documents from the file.
August 31st, 2010 at 10:53 AM
“2a. Update: I received the following update from Dayton’s spokeswoman about Dayton’s comments:
“Mark hadn’t looked at his divorce papers in 10 years, and had forgotten they are no longer sealed. The court documents showing everything is unsealed are correct.”
It isn’t surprising that Dayton’s memory of what happened ten years ago is fuzzy. He seems to have forgotten that the file was sealed at one point, something the court records make clear. And the fact is, he might not even have been aware at the time whether or at what point the documents were sealed or unsealed. This is something the attorneys might very well have arranged on their own without discussing it with their clients in any great detail, or at all.
August 31st, 2010 at 11:01 AM
Hector:
It was Dayton’s lawyer who took out documents (who by the way could only do it if Dayton told him to do it) and than asked for it to be unsealed. Thus unless you had somebody who took the time to check which Luke did (wow where’s the main stream media when you need them) there were documents removed before it was made public that would’ve been made public.
Hector this was done just before Dayton announced he was running for US Senate in 2000.
Dayton knew what was going on and what was in the material being removed. If he didn’t know what was in the materials why would he ask for them to be removed.
Care to revise this Dayton spin you’ve been trying to do.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
August 31st, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Hector,
I find it strange to say the least that you think an attorney for one party can go into the court files after a divorce case has already been concluded and start removing files without the knowledge and permission of both the court and the opposing attorney. Those documents are a matter of court (ie. public) record and attorneys cannot go into those files willy nilly and start pulling documents.
Nor can they willy nilly have divorce cases sealed or unsealed. The presumption in Minnesota is that all divorce cases are a matter of public record (ie. unsealed). Only in certain cases upon petition to the court can a divorce case be sealed. I find it hard to believe that an attorney seeking to have a divorce case sealed would not discuss the matter with his or her client ahead of time. The same is true when a divorce case becomes unsealed. I find it hard to believe that after a case has been sealed the attorneys would not have consulted with their clients before having the sealed case unsealed.
August 31st, 2010 at 11:13 AM
“It was Dayton’s lawyer who took out documents (who by the way could only do it if Dayton told him to do it) and than asked for it to be unsealed.”
You are contradicting Luke’s version of events, not mine. But as it happens, I have seen a copy of the receipt, and it was signed by the ex-wife’s, not Dayton’s attorney. Luke happens to be right about this.
“Thus unless you had somebody who took the time to check which Luke did (wow where’s the main stream media when you need them) there were documents removed before it was made public that would’ve been made public.”
Give Luke credit. He did check. He did know what was going on. But it’s also clear from the record that Luke asked question assuming a premise that he knew to be false.
“Dayton knew what was going on and what was in the material being removed.”
That’s you assumption with no basis in fact.
“If he didn’t know what was in the materials why would he ask for them to be removed.”
It was the ex-wife’s attorney who removed the documents. Luke doesn’t dispute this, and quite frankly it isn’t reasonably disputable.
August 31st, 2010 at 11:24 AM
“I find it strange to say the least that you think an attorney for one party can go into the court files after a divorce case has already been concluded and start removing files without the knowledge and permission of both the court and the opposing attorney.”
I am not responsible for what you find strange. While I grant you, that wouldn’t be proper procedure, I don’t know what happened and apart from what we know from the record, neither does anyone else. I do think Dayton’s attorney at least knew the documents were being removed, but that’s total speculation on my part. What Dayton himself knew is anyone’s guess. It’s quite conceivable that Dayton’s attorney agreed to the removal of the documents without Dayton’s knowledge.
“Nor can they willy nilly have divorce cases sealed or unsealed. The presumption in Minnesota is that all divorce cases are a matter of public record (ie. unsealed).”
Sure they can. Happens all the time, and it’s not disputed that it happened here.
“I find it hard to believe that an attorney seeking to have a divorce case sealed would not discuss the matter with his or her client ahead of time.”
I find it hard to believe that an attorney representing a high profile client in a divorce case would ever not ask for the file to be sealed. How could it possibly be in the interests of the client for such documents to be open to the public? Dayton’s attorney may have mentioned it to Dayton, but it’s the sort of legal no-brainer issue that the lawyer might very well have taken on his own initiative without even mentioning it to his client.
August 31st, 2010 at 11:28 AM
Walter,
So are you also asking Emmer to release his tax returns as a symbol of full disclosure and openness? I suspect you are ust a hypocrite, but I could be wrong.
Thanks,
Alec
August 31st, 2010 at 11:59 AM
[...] UPDATE ON DAYTON PUBLIC RECORDS | Minnesota Democrats Exposed [...]
August 31st, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Kare 11 Reports:
“Voters also appear to be divided along education lines: Those with college and advanced degrees said they favor Emmer over Dayton, 38-30 percent; while those with less than a college education favor Dayton over Emmer, 37-30.”
Boy this poll really demonstrates that uneducated people really are either naive or downright STUPID!
…And should be no surprise to anyone that the uneducated people also tend to be Democrats! :-O
August 31st, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Scott..
What a jerk.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:49 PM
Hector,
The idea that Dayton’s attorney was acting without his client’s knowledge or consent is absurd. If that’s the case, it could be grounds for a complaint with the Lawyer’s Board of Professional Responsibility. It’s against Lawyers’ ethics code for an attorney to essentially go rogue on his client.
You’re right that high profile divorce cases are routinely sealed by courts. But sealing cases doesn’t happen automatically. And lawyers don’t just get to remove documents from court files.
August 31st, 2010 at 5:03 PM
What is Dayton hiding? If he expects to be scrutinized, come up with the documents!
August 31st, 2010 at 5:10 PM
[...] Topics: 2010 Governor | 14 Comments » [...]
August 31st, 2010 at 5:52 PM
Ronald-
What is Emmer hiding? If he expects to be scrutinized, come up with the tax returns!
Luke-
After all of the historical evidence that the issue of divorce records only serves to harm your chosen candidate, why do you continue to push this issue and this story?
August 31st, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Because the information being hidden is more harmfull to Dayton.
August 31st, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Do you people really think that exposing more of Dayton’s short comings will turn voters away from him and to Emmer? Anyone who is even thinking about voting for Dayton would turn to Horner, not Emmer.
Emmer is already losing enough of the Republican vote to Horner, why does he want to push the Democrat vote to him too? Don’t get me wrong, the more votes for Horner the happier I am, but this approach doesn’t make any sense (which pretty much covers the Emmer campaign to this point anyway…).
August 31st, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Focused-
Do you have the documents? Do you know what they say or what is included in them? You must seeing as you just told us that the information contained in them is more harmful to Dayton than it was to Gov. Rudy Perpich when he was urging the media to look at Grunseth’s divorce records in the 1990 campaign.
Luke-
HUGE DEVELOPMENT in the Dayton Divorce Cover-up! Your own faithful reader and poster “Focused on 2010” is one of the lawyers from the Dayton divorce case (I don’t see any other way in which he could possibly have the intimate knowledge of the damaging information contained in the documents that were pulled from the public records in reference to Senator Dayton’s divorce case). I am just shocked that he would hold out on you this long to deliver them to your inbox so you can expose Dayton for what he really is (based off from the sure to be devastatingly harmful information contained in his divorce records). Pete, err, Focused, why don’t you do Luke a favor and email those documents over so he can post them on the web for all of us to read.
August 31st, 2010 at 6:49 PM
“The idea that Dayton’s attorney was acting without his client’s knowledge or consent is absurd.”
Oh, I don’t know, attorneys do lots of routine stuff without talking a lot about it with their clients.
“If that’s the case, it could be grounds for a complaint with the Lawyer’s Board of Professional Responsibility. It’s against Lawyers’ ethics code for an attorney to essentially go rogue on his client.”
Which rule? And what do you think the chances are that Dayton will bring an ethics complaint against his lawyer for doing what was so obviously in his best interest?
August 31st, 2010 at 7:18 PM
Scott makes a good point and brome weighs in to prove it.
August 31st, 2010 at 8:21 PM
Lack-of-Integrity is just as desperate as danbrome, AC, and Hector. They are on the case today because they know there is damaging information coming out and it will destroy the Dayton campaign.
The Democrats are going to lose big in November and the wackos are out in force babbling their nonsense. I for one am enjoying watching their breakdowns on this blog.
If you hurry there is still time to get on the Horner band wagon and be one of his early supporters. Neither Dayton or Emmer have a prayer.
August 31st, 2010 at 11:41 PM
[...] today I posted on MDE about what we know about Mark Dayton’s public records. A key point is the [...]
September 1st, 2010 at 12:05 AM
Hector,
The Rules in question would be Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority between Attorney and Client and Rule 1.4 Communications.
Even if the matter is routine, every lawyer I know copies his client on all correspondence in a case and all court filings. Since motions to seal or unseal divorce cases, I’d bet there was a paper trail that was sent to Dayton. If not, the attorney would have an issue with the Rules of Professional Responsibility.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Focused says:
“They are on the case today because they know there is damaging information coming out and it will destroy the Dayton campaign.”
LMAO!
Pete, I’ll ask again:
“Do you have the documents? Do you know what they say or what is included in them? You must seeing as you just told us that the information contained in them is more harmful to Dayton than it was to Gov. Rudy Perpich when he was urging the media to look at Grunseth’s divorce records in the 1990 campaign.”
September 1st, 2010 at 10:40 AM
First all Lack-of-Integrity I never said they were “more harmful to Dayton than it was to Gov. Rudy Perpich”.
If you go back and read the statement made at 6:03 PM on August 31 you just might be able to confirm that, but only if you are honest (which would be totally out of character for you).
Tell me L-O-I, why are you so afraid to have these documents made public?
September 1st, 2010 at 10:58 AM
After going back and reading comments 16 and 17, I still come to th same conclusion. If this conclusion is incorrect, who are you referring to when you say:
“Because the information being hidden is more harmfull to Dayton.”
More harmful to Dayton than who?
I have never said that I am afraid to have these documents made public. I was simply wondering why Luke would want to make the same mistake as Perpich did in 1990.
I’ll ask the same question to you that I did to Ronald:
“What is Emmer hiding? If he expects to be scrutinized, come up with the tax returns!”
September 1st, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Your conclusion is incorrect.
More harmful to Dayton than to Emmer.
Good to hear you want the documents made public. Have you also posted that position on the liberal blogs?
September 1st, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Tax returns are not a public document. Divorce documents are public.
Why is that so difficult for L-o-I to understand…
September 1st, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Focused-
How do you have any clue if they are more harmful to Dayton than Emmer? I’ll bet Perpich thought they were more damaging to his opponent back in 1990 as well. Clearly the history on this issue has taught you nothing.
I understand that tax returns are not public, but in the spirit of being open to scrutiny, can’t Emmer just show us the documents? I mean, if there really is nothing to hide…
September 1st, 2010 at 11:44 AM
They’re Dayton’s divorce records, so by definition… they’d have to be more harmful to Dayton than to Emmer… unless there was something unholy going on…
Regarding Dayton’s divorce records, I’m yawning.
As I understand it, what happened here is an indication that whatever there is to remain silent about pertains to Dayton’s ex-wife, not Dayton.
And I don’t care, either way.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Because the Emmer campaign is not requesting the documents be made public, this blog is.
Clearly you lack common sense.
In the end it really doesn’t matter. Neither Dayton or Emmer have any hope of becoming Governor.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Integrity..
For the record, Pete just waived the white flag.
Bravo!
September 1st, 2010 at 6:26 PM
danbrome you are such a silly little boy.
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Why is Dayton’s divorce even relevant?! You scream that Emmer’s DUIs are not relevant. That his son’s lewd photos are not relevant. Why is this (or any of the other silliness that the right is trying to make into issues)relevant. Let’s get back to the ISSUES, people!
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:01 PM
Neither Dayton or Emmer have any solutions to the issues so they do this kind of crap to avoid discussing the issues. Don’t you think they would be discussing issues if they knew what the hell they were going to do?
Tom Horner knows the issues and has a plan for addressing the issues. He is also willing to discuss the issues.