He's wrong. That might be applicable to a public official or someone who has voluntarily put himself in the spotlight (athlete, movie personality, etc...), but in a situation like this, the USSC is quite clear that he would be afforded all the privacy rights on private individual. Granted, that would change if he would campaigning for McCain or receiving compensation. That's not the case as far as I can tell.
Can you get anything right? On Oct 30, 12:33 pm, wncs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Not surprisingly, when a person behind in child support payments or > receiving public assistance is receiving significant media attention > which suggests that the person appears to have available financial > resources, the Department risks justifiable criticism if it fails to > take note and respond," Jones-Kelley wrote. > > On Oct 30, 12:56 pm, Philobealo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > for abuse of power and invasion of privacy. > > >http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/29/jo...- > >Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
