On Sealed Documents …
… ARE TWO STATE LAWMAKERS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BARRY BONDS?
FITSNews – March 1, 2008 – A federal judge has officially unsealed Barry Bonds 2003 grand jury testimony, revealing that the slugger had elevated testosterone levels in his system during a 2001 drug test.
Although few doubt that Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs, the unsealing of his testimoney does provide some verifiable confirmation regarding his repeated denials of steroid use.
Speaking of “repeated denials,” we wrote earlier this week about the improper sealing of the divorce decree of S.C. Rep. Wallace Scarborough, who is widely-suspected of having an extended extramarital affair with State Sen. Catherine Ceips (while the latter’s husband was on his death bed, no less).
Both Ceips and Scarborough have repeatedly denied having a romantic relationship, with Ceips going so far as to say “there’s no truth to the story. It’s a sad day to me when colleagues can’t be close friends. I have many close friends in Columbia, and I count Wallace among them.” Hmmmm, yeah … we wonder how that blanket denial will hold up when and if these documents – which were allegedly sealed under pressure – ever see the light of day?
Comments
By old bike dude on March 1st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I think if we go inside the numbers that Bonds and Scarborough match up pretty evenly. While Bonds obviously had more homers, Scarborough had more scores and less strike outs. Scarborough could probably take a few lessons from Barry on improving his long game while Wallace could hold school on covering the field, playing on the road, and putting away the competition. Why the two of them remained unsigned is quite the mystery.
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on March 1st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
sic(k) willie,
Do you have proof of anything improper, or are you just slinging mud again? Do you have pictures, video, audio or more than 2 witnesses?
No. Just another willie-scam. Like your post full of screwed up links.
sic(k) willie, were you drunk (again) when you created this post with all links pointing to sportsillustrated.cnn.com or just sloppy?
Come on willie, do the right thing and just turn this into a porn site.
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on March 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Editorial Note: BIN News is deeply offended that sic(k) willie has begun to add “a.k.a. Sic Willie’s Stalker” to the header of our posts.
We consistently track sic(k) willie’s posts on this blog, and, from time to time, we receive unsolicited input from his “friends and family” about his nefarious dealings and activities. But, we’re not “stalkers.”
We leave that to “The Boys from Charlotte” who have time and $$$.
Sincerely,
BIN News Editorial Staff
P.S. If anyone knows who’s paying “The Boys,” please let us know!
By Mincing Words on March 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
BIN,
does journalistic proof require more than two witnesses? even in a criminal court, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” could most certainly be satisfied by two witnesses or less…
By Hmmmm.... on March 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
There’s a big difference between grand jury testimony and a divorce decree. There are all kinds of legitmate reasons for sealing grand jury testimony. But a divorce decree? Not so much.
By Harden Gervais on March 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You’re nuts. These documents have been public for some time. I even know a guy that has them, complete with photos of Ceips and Scarborough getting into their cars after a tryst.
Any effort to seal them is way too late – that horse has left the barn.
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on March 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Harden,
Post those pictures. Please and thank you!
BIN News
By Earl on March 3rd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
One reason might be that there are minor children and the adults in question are high-profile. This protects the children from coming to school one day to find out “your daddy is on drugs” or “your momma is a ho” after some reporter decided to make hay of someone’s divorce files and half their school learned about it via the six o’clock news.
That’s a motive I understand, and would wholeheartedly sympathize with. Indeed, Rep. Scarborough does have minor children. Perhaps, if the files are sealed, this might be the reason.
But my life’s too busy these days to go snooping through divorce files. I’ve got a couple of divorces to my name and anyone’s divorces just become a little more heartbreak and depression than I really want to deal with.
However, in the grand scheme of things, what does a messy divorce really have to do with the bigger issues of this state? A lesson of the 1998 Clinton impeachment proceedings is that while some people think this stuff matters, there are a lot of people who don’t.
Majority wins … and on this issue, I’m willing to bet that a majority just doesn’t care, like it or not.