Judge OKs Release of Romney Divorce Testimony
Staples founder Tom Stemberg opposes decision
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted Oct 25, 2012 9:44 AM CDT
Updated Oct 25, 2012 11:51 AM CDT
Maureen Stemberg Sullivan, second right, ex-wife of Staples founder Tom Stemberg, and her lawyer Gloria Allred, second left, leave Norfolk County Probate Court, Oct. 24, 2012, in Canton, Mass.   (AP Photo/Bizuayehu Tesfaye)

(Newser) – A Massachusetts judge rule today that Mitt Romney's sealed testimony from the divorce hearing of Staples founder Tom Stemberg can be released, after putting off the decision yesterday, the AP reports. The Boston Globe had argued that the court should reassess the gag order given that Romney is running for president. Stemberg's ex-wife, Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, believes Romney downplayed Staples' value to stiff her, a source confirms for Reuters. "He was stating for his best friend to save money in a divorce that the stock was worth very little."

In the year after Romney's testimony, Staples' value almost doubled. Romney doesn't object to releasing the testimony. "From the governor's perspective, the sooner we get at it, the better," his lawyer told the court yesterday. But Stemberg does, and strongly. "This is not an issue involving Governor Romney," his lawyer said. "This is a private divorce matter." Staples also asked for time to make sure the documents didn't contain confidential information that might harm its business.

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Judge Postpones Ruling on Sealed Romney Testimony is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 71 comments
Oct 27, 2012 1:54 PM CDT
and we should care?
Oct 26, 2012 9:20 AM CDT
I thought it was pretty ironic that an ad for Staples popped up on my screen while I was reading this story.
Oct 25, 2012 10:25 PM CDT
"In the year after Romney's testimony, Staples' value almost doubled." And maybe in two years it tripled, and maybe in 10 years it was up 2000%. WTF does that have to do with anything? Only the value at the time of the hearing has any relevance.