If Broward can, why not Palm Beach County?

Sunday's Post had an article revealing Palm Beach County has a secret docket of over 44 court cases. It was recently disclosed that Broward County had a secret docket also. This troubles many because court records are supposed to be open.

Now Broward and Palm Beach docket's are supposed to be different. In Broward those files closed were in many cases officers of the court, politicians and local celebrities. Here in Palm Beach it is cases involving domestic violence, children etc. That's if you take the word of Chief Circuit Judge Kathleen Kroll.

Sorry but TFM doesn't have enough faith in our judicial system to take Judge Kroll's word. In over a year of blogging I've chronicled many cases of judicial abuse, and it can occur and has occured here in Palm Beach County. An investigation needs to be done, by someone outside the County for I don't think State Attorney Barry Krischer can be objective. Will the Palm Beach Post call for a investigation? They constantly attack the slightest closing of public records. Shocker, but TFM most of time agrees with them. Currently the Post is asking questions, that's a good sign.

We'll have to see if Kroll is telling the truth. The 'protect the children' excuse has too often been used by demagogues for me to trust anyone in government who uses it as a reason for any action.

Open Post- Bright & Early, Jo's Cafe,

WEST PALM BEACH — Forty-three civil court cases have been held in ultra-secret status by Palm Beach County court officials since 2001, their contents wholly unknown, their most basic information — names and case numbers — restricted from public view.

A woman's claim against Ford Motor Co., for example.

All are on a "confidential" docket the chief judge herself says she wasn't aware of.

Allowing the public to see courts and their records has long been a basic value of American justice. Public access, including the basic knowledge that a case exists, is considered one way people can hold courts accountable and understand their actions.

Chief Circuit Judge Kathleen Kroll began a judicial review of the confidential cases after a media inquiry about it. She completed it Friday.

Kroll did not release the identities of the litigants, lawyers or judges involved. The clerk's office released a list of the case numbers. The case number coding indicates the type of case.

The majority involve domestic relations, which can include divorce and adoption. Also, there are civil lawsuits, mental health and tuberculosis-related cases.

Kroll and her staff lawyers decided that nearly all the cases should remain confidential. The judges who handled them had a legal basis to seal them, relying on a judicial rule that allows closure to protect issues such as trade secrets. Most were closed to protect a child, Kroll said, and none was closed for terrorism concerns.

"I'm clear that a judge did it, recognized the rule and made a decision. As a chief, I'm very comfortable with that," Kroll said.

The entire files of the cases will remain confidential and sealed for now.

First Amendment lawyers are not comfortable with that. The wholesale sealing of a file — entirely dropped from public view — is something some never have heard of.

Companies may be able to hide defective products within secret sealed files. Public agencies can skirt accountability if the public doesn't know the case even exists.

It is not uncommon for a judge to seal individual items in a court file: a psychological exam of a person, financial disclosures, etc. But the closure of entire files raises strong concerns.

Jon Kaney Jr., the lawyer for the First Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the public's constitutional right to open government, said he never had heard of secret dockets in 20 years of practicing First Amendment law.

Nor does Kaney know of any possible basis that could be legal or constitutional.

"The idea of it is anathema to the entire Florida court system," Kaney said. "I'm wondering how an entire file can disappear. There is no way, no how that ever could be appropriate."

It's happening in other places, too. According to published accounts, courts in Broward County and the Tampa Bay area also have maintained secret dockets.

A Miami Herald investigation into the secret docket in Broward revealed a select group of people given super-sealed status for their lawsuits or divorces: elected officials, judges, TV personalities. The Florida Attorney General's Office is expected to investigate.

Court officials in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties had cases kept entirely out of public view, according to The St. Petersburg Times. Court clerk officials in the counties said computer glitches and clerical errors were responsible.

Un Cha Kim, chief operating officer of the Palm Beach County clerk's office, said the secret docket cases were given a higher security clearance with a few special keystrokes. The files were made that way upon a judge's declaring them confidential and ordering the entire file sealed, Kim said.

"It is presumed judges know the law, and clerks do not," she said.

Secret dockets are catching people's attention in Tallahassee.

The chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court, Barbara Pariente, made a reference to the Broward docket situation at a privacy committee meeting this month, saying it causes some concern. A spokesman for the court said she would decline to comment to the media because of possible legal action.

First Amendment lawyer Thomas Julin said it's not clear whether the secret dockets are happening because people are getting preferred treatment or clerks are overzealous or it's all some good-faith mix-up. One thing is clear though, he said: Judges and clerks' offices have been lackadaisical guardians of keeping things open.

"If those institutions and courts are going to work, people have to have faith that they are doing the right thing," Julin said.

In the federal court system, where terrorism cases land, reports of sealed cases have increased since the Sept. 11 attacks. Cases are removed from any public view, filed in a secret vault.

A federal appeals court in Atlanta recently had to remind federal judges in South Florida that the practice of secret dockets is forbidden. The same court earlier had found the practice unconstitutional.

The practice of super-sealed cases in Palm Beach County probably occurred before Sept. 11, too, Kim said.

Kim said her office intends to make just the case numbers available in the public view to comply with a recent appellate court ruling. If people enter the case number in the clerk's computerized record system, they will see that it exists and is sealed, and nothing else.

So if people enter the name Ford Motor Co., they will not see any reflection of the company's case that is on the secret docket list.

The Palm Beach Post has asked Kroll to release more information about the cases on the secret docket: the names of the litigants, the names of the judges and whether any public notice was given before the files were entirely sealed.

In the Treasure Coast, court officials report no secret dockets.

The chief judge of the 19th Judicial Circuit, which includes Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River and Okeechobee counties, said he is not aware of any judge in the circuit ordering a case to be entirely confidential, barring even its mere existence from public disclosure.

Chief Judge William Roby said he never has approved that kind of "secret docket."

"I know nothing of anything like that," Roby said.

The Martin County clerk of court, Marsha Ewing, has said no secret docket of civil cases exists. St. Lucie Clerk of Court Ed Fry said his supervisors reported no "super secret" cases.

Fry said the clerk's office will seal a case only with an order from a judge. Every sealed case gets a case number and an index in the clerk's computer system, he said. The existence of these cases and the fact that they have been closed from public viewing is a matter of public record, Fry said.

The supervisor of St. Lucie's circuit civil division said the judge who presides over those cases takes the process one step further and requires all attorneys who request that a case be sealed first notify the media before he will consider the motion.

In her review of the 43 sealed cases, Kroll ruled that at least two had been sealed incorrectly: One involved an emancipation of a child; the other, an issue of attorney fees totaling just over $13,000. She unsealed them.

Kroll said she saw no evidence on the list of people receiving preferential treatment or hiding an A-list divorce. The number of cases on the list is few compared to the tens of thousands that have moved through court in the same period, she said.