This diary contains the first-ever-released copy of Newt’s 1980 divorce file which I personally obtained this past Thursday (December 22), directly from the Clerk of Court for the Carroll County Superior Court in Carrollton, Georgia, after the file had been hidden in an undisclosed location in the clerk's office for several years. In this diary, my commentary appears first, followed by the divorce papers displayed via Scribd viewers, followed by my backstory of how I obtained this copy of Newt’s divorce file after Bloomberg News and CNN had both been told that the file was “sealed.” Subsequently, CNN was provided with a copy which served as the basis for their story published today entitled, Newly released court documents cast doubt on Gingrich version of first divorce.
While Newt readily admits that he was involved in an affair at the time he was pursuing impeachment charges against Clinton for having an affair, he continually and repeatedly explains that the difference was, Clinton was lying about his affair (while Newt was merely hiding his affair). In other words, lying about an irrelevant issue causes it to become relevant.
Newt’s 1980 divorce was old news. But he is freshly lying about it. So it’s newly relevant.
Newt’s fresh lie that Mrs. Gingrich is the party who wanted the divorce, was rolled out in a column penned by his youngest daughter, Jackie Sue Gingrich Cushman ("Jackie Sue") back in May of this year on Townhall.com, a conservative site formerly owned by the Heritage Foundation, now owned by Salem Communications, an evangelical Christian and conservative political talk content provider. While her column titled Setting the Record Straight specifically states that she is going to correct the record regarding the infamous hospital room visit, she never disputes the accurate version of that story. She merely sets up, by implication, inaccurate straw versions of the story which she then easily knocks down. Newt and his apologists now point to that column as the definitive and final word on the issue.
On December 10, I posted her column on my Facebook page and discussed this issue in much greater detail, days before the national media developed the appetite and summoned the courage to question the substance of her column. Since Jackie Sue and I both hail from Carrollton, Georgia (her mother was my 10th grade algebra teacher in 1978 when Newt was making his third run for congress), we have many mutual Facebook friends, so I neither expected nor received any "Likes" on my post, as I essentially questioned both her accuracy and her motivation.
Jackie Sue's column very nicely dovetails with Newt’s Answering the Attacks page on his campaign website, so much so that it rasies the question of whether the former was carefully crafted specifically to provide sourcing for the latter, especially in light of the disingenuous side-stepping and misleading word-smithing contained in both.
Here is a screen shot of the relevant portion of “Answering the Attacks”:
Notice that Newt does not independently claim that Mrs. Gingrich wanted the divorce -- he points the reader to the column penned by a person with a 30 year old memory of events which occurred when she was 13.
In a 1994 Frontline documentary on PBS, the Gingrichs' pastor at the time of the divorce, Rev. Brantley Harwell of the First Baptist Church in Carrollton, said, "Jackie did not want the divorce and...and was humiliated, bitter, angry."
The first-ever-released copy of the divorce papers in the case of Newton Leroy Gingrich v. Jacqueline B. Gingrich, Carroll County Superior Court, supports Rev. Harwell's assessment, disproves Newt's claim, and establishes the following timeline:
July 14, 1980: Newt files Complaint for Divorce.
July 28, 1980: Mrs. Gingrich signed an Acknowledgment of Service, confirming that she had been given a copy of the divorce complaint, thus obviating the need for her to be served by a deputy sheriff.
September 12, 1980: Mrs. Gingrich filed her Answer and Counterclaim. In her answer, she denied paragraph 7 of his complaint which had averred that the marriage was “irretriebably [sic] broken,” indicating that she did not want out of the marriage.
In paragraph 5 of her counterclaim, Mrs. Gingrich states, “Defendant shows that she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce, but that she does not desire one at this time,” further showing that she did not want the marriage to end.
October 13, 1980: Mrs. Gingrich files Motion for Rule Nisi with accompanying Order from the court setting a hearing on the issues of temporary alimony and child support. (In Georgia, a Motion for “Rule Nisi” is simply a request for the court to hold a hearing wherein the opposing party must show cause why the requests of the petitioning party should not be granted. The court’s order sets up the hearing.) In her motion, Mrs. Gingrich again states that she does not believe that the marriage is irretrievably broken, showing that as late as October 13, four months after the separation, she still did not want a divorce. Instead, she requests that the court force Newt to provide basic support for her and their two minor daughters during the period of separation. According to Mrs. Gingrich’s motion, Newt had refused to provide even the most basic living necessities for his minor daughters during the separation. And this was at a time when he was in Washington with mistress and soon-to-be wife # 2, Marianne, living on a $60,000 taxpayer-provided government check, as pointed out in my December 11 Daily Kos diary, Newt's Fundamental Character Flaw.
The exact amount of Newt’s taxpayer-provided annual government salary at the time was $60,882.52, or $5,055.21 per month, as indicated by Newt in his Domestic Relations Financial Data Sheet, which was located in the first-ever-released copy of the divorce file directly behind the Motion for Rule Nisi. The financial data sheet appears below in the Scribd viewer containing the Motion for Rule Nisi.
In Paragraph 4 of Mrs. Gingrich’s Motion for Rule Nisi, she states as follows:
“Despite repeated notice to plaintiff [Newt] and requests by defendant [Mrs. Gingrich], plaintiff has failed and refused to voluntarily provide reasonable support sufficient to include payment of usual and normal living expenses, including drugs, water, sewage, garbage, gas, electric and telephone service for defendant and the minor children. As a result, many of such accounts are two or three months past due with notices of intent to cut off service of gas and electricity.”
Again, this was filed in October, four months after the June separation; days after the September surgery; and, at a time when Newt was in Washington with his mistress and $60K taxpayer-provided government check.
I don’t know which is more despicable: choosing to support himself and his mistress instead of his two minor daughters, or, using one of those daughters 30 years after the fact to provide political cover to him for having done so.
Continuing with the timeline:
January 31, 1981: Newt and Mrs. Gingrich sign an Agreement settling all issues.
February 2, 1981: The court enters a Final Judgment and Decree, incorporating the parties’ agreement into the court’s order.
January 11, 1993: Mrs. Gingrich files a Motion for Contempt, primarily alleging Newt had failed to abide by the term of the agreement requiring him to provide a life insurance policy to insure his life during the time he is obligated to provide support.
March 21, 1994: Newt files a Petition for Modification of Alimony. This is odd. Paragraph 7 of the Agreement (appearing in the Scribd viewer below which contains the Final Judgment and Decree), provides a sliding scale for determining the amount of alimony based on the level of Newt’s income. The top income category is “$92,500 to $100,000,” requiring a corresponding monthly alimony amount of $1,300. Paragraph 7 further provides that in the event Newt’s annual salary should exceed $100,000, “the monthly payments to the wife shall continue at the $1,300 level unless the wife should obtain modification by agreement or court action.”
So why would Newt, out of the well-known benevolence of his heart towards Mrs. Gingrich, just up and voluntarily ask the court to require him to increase his alimony amount from the existing $1,300 level, up to $1,650?
Because in so doing, he extracted an agreement from her to forever waive her right to seek future upward modifications of the alimony amount, as every other citizen in the State of Georgia who is in her situation would be able to do every time there is a change in the financial circumstances of the one paying the support, limited only by having to wait at least two years between each request seeking an upward modification.
In November of 1994, the successful Republican takeover of congress resulted in the expected selection of Newt by his peers to be the new speaker of the house. And in December 1994, Rupert Murdoch offered Newt $4.5 million to write a book -- just months after Mrs. Gingrich had agreed to never request an upward modification in alimony, even if Newt's financial circumstances changed.
Yes, Newt ended up turning it down because it got tangled up in allegations of ethics violations. But at the time it was offered, Newt didn’t know he was going to be forced to turn it down. And he had to have known for some time prior to December that the bounty of Rupert was about to be bestowed upon him, because his literary agent Lynn Chu had spent some amount of time bumping up the original $2 million offer.
1.) Complaint for Divorce filed by Newt; Acknowledgment of Service signed by Mrs. Gingrich; Answer and Counterclaim filed by Mrs. Gingrich. (8 pages)
2.) Motion for Rule Nisi filed by Mrs. Gingrich requesting temporary support and the Domestic Relations Financial Data Sheets filed by both parties. (9 pages)
3.) Final Judgment and Decree and the Agreement incorporated therein. (14 pages)
4.) Petition for Modification of Alimony filed by Newt and the court’s Order granting the petition. (10 pages)
1.) Complaint for Divorce filed by Newt; Acknowledgment of Service signed by Mrs. Gingrich; Answer and Counterclaim filed by Mrs. Gingrich. [Civil Action File Number 15-461] (8 pages)
2.) Motion for Rule Nisi filed by Mrs. Gingrich requesting temporary support and the Domestic Relations Financial Data Sheets filed by both parties. [Civil Action File Number 15-461] (9 pages)
3.) Final Judgment and Decree and the Agreement incorporated therein. [Civil Action File Number 15-461] (14 pages)
4.) Petition for Modification of Alimony filed by Newt and the court’s Order granting the petition. [Civil Action File Number 94-V-0276] (10 pages)
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011, I was at a popular eating establishment in Carrollton, Georgia when I learned that a news reporter had been told by someone in the Carroll County Superior Court Clerk's office that the 1980 divorce file of Newt was "sealed" and unavailable for public inspection. While I didn't particularly care what was contained in a 30 year old file, the mere fact that it was sealed piqued my interest. I figured it’s a lot like a birth certificate -- if there’s nothing to hide, why not just show it to all of us?
By case law and by court rule in Georgia, all civil litigation files are to be open to the public unless a specific law prohibits public access (extraordinarily rare) or unless a judge has sealed the file after weighing the potential harm to the parties’ privacy against the public’s interest in disclosure.
As our Supreme Court said in Atlanta Journal Constitution v. Long et al., 258 Ga. 410, 369 S.E.2d 755 (1988):
“Public access protects litigants both present and future, because justice faces its gravest threat when courts dispense it secretly. Our system abhors star chamber proceedings with good reason. Like a candle, court records hidden under a bushel make scant contribution to their purpose.”
Many people, including judges, do not realize the extremely high bar set for sealing a divorce. And since the court rule which codifies the balancing requirement came into existence after the Gingrich divorce, I thought there was a good chance that proper procedure had not been followed. So Wednesday night, I prepared a motion to intervene in the closed Gingrich case for the purpose of moving to have it unsealed. And I prepared my accompanying memorandum of law, heavy on cited authority and hard-charging on behalf of the American public, of which, I am a member -- a member being represented by me, pro se.
In the rain and tracking through construction mud flowing from the newly-constructed courthouse behind the existing courthouse, I first went to the clerk's filing office on the ground floor. Amy -- the very nice and friendly young lady behind the counter -- went on for a few minutes about how much I look and sound like my brother, Vance, a Carroll County Deputy Sheriff assigned to courthouse security, by whom all who desire to enter or leave the courthouse must pass.
Amy was going to be Magenta in the Carroll County Community Theatre's production of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, had someone not shown Mayor Garner a video clip of a particular rehearsal scene which had been posted on YouTube. He immediately nixed the production because it was not “in keeping with the moral standards of the community” -- the same community which gave Newt to America.
I prefaced my inquiry by saying that I already knew that Newt’s file was sealed, but I was only asking for a copy of the order sealing the file (because I needed some information from the sealing order to insert into a couple of blank lines which I had left in the motion which was tucked away in my hip pocket). But when I mentioned that I knew that it was sealed, she very gregariously said, "Oh, yes! A lot of people have been asking for it, but it's sealed!" She went on to say that the files had been removed from where they normally would be located and were now in Clerk Alan Lee's office upstairs. As I started out the door, I asked if she could tell me who in particular had asked for the files recently and she said that Bloomberg News had been there the previous Friday and another news organization had been at her counter "a couple of days ago" and she had informed both that the files were sealed.
So up the stairs I went to the larger area of the clerk’s office (the clerk’s office is in about four disconnected locations within the rambling 1928 courthouse) which houses the deed vault, the elected clerk's actual office and an open area where three ladies sit at desks facing a counter. Standing at the counter, I asked to see Clerk Lee and was told that he was next door in a meeting inside the new courthouse. The lady at the desk on the right, Kathryn, asked if there was something she could help me with. So I repeated to her that I simply wanted a copy of the order sealing Newt’s divorce file, explaining that I understood that the file itself was sealed.
When I said "sealed," she blurted out, “Oh, yeah! That file is sealed!” So I asked her if other people had been in their office asking to see the file and she said there had been several, but she could only name Bloomberg. I asked if anyone had ever tried to get it unsealed. She then rather emphatically exclaimed, “That file will never be unsealed!”
I explained again that I only wanted a copy of the sealing order and I asked if she could just get that one page from the top of the file in Clerk Lee’s office and copy it for me. “I’ll text the clerk.” So I propped up on the lone bar stool near the counter and appeared engrossed in my Samsung Galaxy Tab, dreading the significant amount of my time that I knew was about to be wasted.
A few minutes went by. The phone on Kathryn’s desk rang. “Yeah...he says he just wants a copy of the sealing order......yeah......un-huh......it's Vance's brother......okay.” She turns to me, “He said there is no sealing order because it isn’t sealed.”
“Well, does that mean I can look at it?” A surprisingly confusing question. But it was my fault. I had made it clear that I did not want to see the file; that I only wanted a copy of the order sealing the file. So since there was no order sealing the file, my inquiry had been answered. Next, please? I then explained that now I did want to see the file, since there was no order sealing it. “You’ll have to see Clerk Lee to do that.”
Back to my Galaxy Tab. More time goes by. But I’m nothing if not bulldogishly stubborn, so I wait. And wait.
The First Baptist Church of Carrollton sits directly across the street from the courthouse. It's the same church which held a food drive to collect groceries to put food on the table for Newt's minor daughters when his $60K taxpayer-provided government check was otherwise occupied with the more pressing needs of himself and his mistress back in Washington. If Santa’s sled were parked in the clerk’s office, Rudolph’s nose would be quietly ringing the outermost bell in the First Baptist bell tower. The bells can be enjoyed at a comfortable decibel level a mile across town. And they toll every 15 minutes. And on the hour, they play an entire verse and course of Amazing Grace, more of which I was needing, the longer I waited.
I looked up from my Galaxy Tab and asked if Clerk Lee knew I was waiting. “Yeah, he knows.” More waiting. Then a conversation ensued between the lady at the middle desk and Kathryn as to whether maybe Kathryn should text him again to make sure that he had understood that since there was no sealing order, I now wanted to see the file and I was patiently waiting for him to show it to me.
For a moment the bells had competition as Christina Aguilera belted out, “I am beautiful in single way” from somewhere deep within my pocket. I stepped out into the hall to take the call from my office manger/paralegal/wife who wanted to make sure I wasn’t being detained against my will as I was long past my estimated return time. I seated myself at a vacant desk in the hall which had served as sort of concierge post in times of budgetary plentiness as we decided to meet for dinner at the Corner Café, a quirky little eatery on the town square which “proudly serves strange food,” mostly on focaccia bread.
Not long afterwards, a very tall gentleman came walking down the hall towards me. "Are you Craig?"
Extremely nice and very cordial, Clerk Lee apologized for my wait and invited me into his office to look at the files as he explained what had happened. He said he was aware that there was a “rumor” that Newt’s file was sealed and he knew that the rumor had emanated from his office. And he knew how it had gotten started.
Apparently, at some point during the administration of the previous clerk, there had been some concern that someone might try to steal the original file from the courthouse, so the deputy clerk at the time had put the file in a special hiding place. That was years ago. And Clerk Lee knew nothing about it.
When this current political season started several months ago, Clerk Lee had a similar concern and asked Amy (downstairs) to bring the file up to his office for safekeeping. When Amy couldn’t locate it where it should have been, she called the now-retired deputy clerk who told her about the special hiding place. The retired deputy clerk then mentioned that she thought the case might have been sealed.
Clerk Lee continued explaining to me that Amy had then located the files and brought them up to his office where he reviewed them and couldn’t find an order sealing them. So out of an abundance of caution, he called one of the attorneys who had represented Mrs. Gingrich and he said he didn’t remember the files being sealed and further said he didn’t know of any reason why they should have been sealed. Clerk Lee then called the retired deputy clerk and she reiterated that she only thought they could have been sealed at some point, but wasn’t sure. So they had all collectively come to the conclusion that these files which had been hidden for several years, were, in fact, not sealed.
I pointed out that maybe he could let Amy know about that since she runs the filing counter downstairs and obviously didn’t know about their final determination, as she had told Bloomberg on Friday and some other news organization on Monday, that the files were sealed. Clerk Lee then told me that retired superior court Judge Duffy had been in his office earlier that morning and had told him, that on the previous day, he had talked to a CNN reporter who was in town and the reporter had mentioned that he had been told by Amy in the clerk's office that the files were sealed.
So while I was waiting at the counter as Kathryn made my copy of the files, I heard Clerk Lee on the phone as he called and apologized to the CNN reporter, offering to wait in his office as long as was necessary for the reporter to come back to the courthouse in Carrollton to pick up a copy of the files, even though the reporter was back in Atlanta by then.
Still, the satisfaction of getting access to documents which had been hidden from public view for so many years, was tempered by the knowledge that I had a really great -- but now totally wasted -- motion and memorandum brief still in my hip pocket.