State must give man wife's e-mail

What's wrong with this picture?

This isn't a guy getting emails his wife doesn't want him to see. Obviously she wants to prove to him that it wasn't as bad as he thought, or she has some OTHER motive. Maybe they both want to sue the OTHER guy--who knows? In any event, his wife was using a public, state computer for private communication. I think anyone who has an expectation of privacy in that instance is crazy.

...He says his wife supported his efforts.

"It's been such a nightmare," Stephen Malmer said. "I was horrified by the amount of opposition I ran up against."

He said his wife no longer has access to the e-mails and can't provide them herself.

The cabinet's general counsel had said the e-mails were exempt from public disclosure for reasons including a personal privacy exception to the statute.

In his ruling, Shepherd wrote, "In this case, the communications are by definition non-work-related, but that does not mean there is no public interest in the disclosure of such e-mails. The fact that state employees are using state resources to exchange non-work-related messages during working hours is a matter of legitimate inquiry for the public."

Bobbie Malmer still works for the cabinet. Moss resigned in May 2006.

So, as long as the partner admits to an affair and then agrees to revealing emails alls well with the world

The public interest is served in THIS instance, not all instances, and I would guess if the wife protested, the judge might have gone the other way.

But then again, if Karl Rove were sending love notes to Scotty McClellan, don't you think there'd be a public interest in seeing those emails?

This is government email. It may be state government, but it's tax dollars at work. That product isn't 'private.'

Not trying to threadjack, but that common misconception
is kinda a 'pet peeve' of mine.

Anyone who thinks that employees only use company or government computers for work related purposes is living in a fantasy world. Most of this use is either porn, or stupid fwds and stale jokes. Or recipes. What interest the public has in such a case is peripheral at best and should be handled in-house as an employee performance matter. I could see such a public interest in a national security and/or high security setting, which is rarely the case at the state level, except with law enforcement or private information on citizens. But that isn't the case here.

And if the husband has extracted a confession from his wife and the guy she had the affair with has left his job, then what's the point in reading the emails now? Is he going to hold them over her head from now on? Use them in divorce proceedings? I don't get it. Either she had the affair and they work through it, or they should just call it quits. But to belabor the point by demanding further evidence of something he already knows existed is fruitless unless he has other motives for wanting them.

The question in my mind when any affair occurs in a marriage is, what drove the person to have it in the first place? To me, this guy is a dick. And maybe that's all the dick he's got working for him. Hence the affair. And if so, maybe the wife should cut her losses and go and try to find Mr. Moss.....

The WIFE in this instance is all for the husband reading the emails, FWIW.

She has stated that she would have provided them to him, if she had access to them. Apparently she deleted them, but they're still on the server. She still has her job, too.

We don't know the dynamic between them, but we've got two people, one of whom is the author of the emails, telling the judge that there IS a public interest in releasing them. The judge is agreeing.

And the emails were prepared on the taxpayer's dime, so the public interest argument does apply.

I dunno about you, but I think the taxpayer DOES have a right to know how the equipment they pay for is utilized. And the workers should understand--if they stupidly don't already-- that there is no expectation of privacy when using equipment that belongs to the government, any government.

...but still, this all started out as a civil matter. And unless the husband knows something criminal has taken place, or that someone else's rights have been violated, I still think it should be handled as an employee matter. The state does have an interest here, I'm talking about degree. Purely as a practical matter. Or the judge could review them in camera and make the call. We would be totally overwhelmed if we tried to review all personal data the is improperly sent and/or received on government computers. By setting the precedent, now any spouse who is suspicious of the other, might have a similar legal claim.

And I wonder how quick they'd be ready to open things up if a women was the one demanding access. As I said, it's mostly junk and/or of limited interest. I'm not saying it isn't wrong. Someone could be doing something illegal. That's where the state's interest clearly lies. But where do you draw the line from a practical standpoint?

As for the wife's going along with it well, I'd take that under advisement. She's the perpetrator that started all this, or at least the one that's left. Moss has skedaddled and she's left holding the bag and explaining herself conduct to her husband, the judge -- and now us and everybody. She could be feeling guilty and willing to go along with it for the sake of her marriage, since her actions make it "appear" that she's trying to save it. Or maybe she's being coerced by her husband. Like you said, its a dynamic we don't know about, and it probably factors into this situation.

I guess what puzzles me is that beyond him saying "he just wants them," he hasn't given any other credible reason why that's even necessary if in fact he decided to reconcile with his wife. Why does he need all the gory details? I don't know maybe I'm wrong. But her admission would be enough for me. Its like having snail mail love letters after catching your wife reading them or something. Only in this case, he has to go to court and ask a judge let him take a look at them, instead of stealing them from her purse like all the other guys have to do.

.... instead of stealing them from her purse like all the other guys have to do.


:rofl:

This is an odd case--it would be one for COURT TV to cover! We don't know the dynamic, but it could be that maybe the wife just ripped off a piece with her paramour a few times, and she wants those emails as well to prove that it wasn't such a big thing. Maybe the emails say something like "Yeah, this is fun, but if you think I'm leaving my beloved Elmer (or whatever his name is), you're nuts!" Or perhaps "I'm only screwing around with you, Mossie, to get back at Elmer for banging that waitress in Dubuque when he went on a business trip--so enjoy it while it lasts, because this thing has a short shelf life!"

Or words to that effect!!

This case will make it harder for a judge to deny a woman making a similar request, at any rate!

Anyone has the right to request to see it. So workers should not use state equipment for private messages. The judge is correct.

I'm not saying the judge isn't correct. That doesn't make him any less of a putz. He has discretion on how he handles it. I just think its the wrong way to do it if no other serious crime or violations of the rights of tohers are involved here. I'd rather he spend his energies on the real criminals in Kentucky. He can start at the governor's office (the outgoing one) and work his way down. Or maybe he could start with Mitch!

;) - Now's there's a REAL CROOK!!!