I agree with the lawyers cited in the article that once the ex-wife filed private information in court filings that were not under seal, they became matters of public record.

But god, what a shitty article. The "judicial reform advocate" angle is a total red herring. That's not why the guy was jailed--he was held in contempt because he violated a restraining order not to discuss private information that came to light in the context of a court proceeding. That restraining order would have been totally enforceable if the ex-wife's lawyer hadn't screwed up by filing that private information without seal.

I think that the "judicial reform advocate" angle was not a red herring but instead it was part of the article's intent to suggest that the judge in this case was not merely wrong about whether court filings are considered public information, but was in fact actively attempting to persecute this man.

The fact that you, me, and most everyone else knows that throughout the United States unsealed court records are considered public information makes it strain the credulity that this judge (a professional) would not know that fact. Combine that with a plausible motive (that this man's political activism had just strengthened the judicial oversight body which had censured this judge numerous times) and we have the appearance of judicial impropriety.

That his ex-wife is a lawyer in the same county is just a coincident. I think the relevant quote is "A good lawyer know the law, a great lawyer knows the judge".

I think the relevant quote is "lawyers tend to live (and thus file for divorce) in the county where they practice."

This is true - I guess the real lesson is don't marry a lawyer.

The judge should probably be removed from the bench for that egregious decision.

Probably won't happen. Judges are pretty much immune to the consequences of their legal decisions. One would have to really f##k up royally to lose his position.