So because they do such things as a matter of course, even if they are against the Law, you are ok with it, right?
On Oct 30, 11:25 am, wncs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The article indicated that it was standard procedure in that office to > do such checks. Again, if a person is behind on chid support payments > and indicates on national tv that he is buying a business that makes > $250,000 a year, then I think that needs to be questioned. > > On Oct 30, 2:22 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > And yet he doesn't, and I believe such checks are made if the former > > SPOUSE asks for them... > > > Not if there is some Political reason to check. > > > So even if it was against the Law, which they are checking on, you are > > saying it was ok with you?!?!?!?!? > > > On Oct 30, 11:19 am, wncs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If he owes back child support, and given the fact that he indicated > > > that he could afford to buy a business, I believe the check was > > > warranted. > > > > On Oct 30, 2:14 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The Dispatch has uncovered four uses of state computer systems to > > > > access personal information on Wurzelbacher, including the child- > > > > support check authorized by Jones-Kelley. > > > > > She said on Monday that her department frequently runs checks for any > > > > unpaid child support obligations "when someone is thrust quickly into > > > > the public spotlight." > > > > > Republican legislators have challenged Jones-Kelley's reason for > > > > checking on Wurzelbacher as "frightening" and flimsy. > > > > > Jones-Kelly also has denied any connections between the computer > > > > checks on Wurzelbacher and her support for Obama. She donated the > > > > maximum $2,500 this year to the Obama campaign. > > > > > Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles is investigating whether the > > > > child-support check on Wurzelbacher was legal. > > > > > On Oct 30, 10:33 am, 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...- > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
