“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.
She had to write it - she couldn’t say it with a straight face.
At my Agency, such improper use of govt data would get the offender, in a high profile case like this, fired.
So let me get this straight - Jones-Kelley is saying that if someone states publicly that they have the desire and/or financial means to purchase a business the state government apparatus has a DUTY to check confidential data bases to make sure said person is or isn't currently paying child support or receiving public assistance? Can Jones-Kelley list other such inquiries to back this up? Of course not.
Jones-Kelley says the info is still confidential and yet her statement takes the presumptive, "...when a person behind in child support payments or receiving public assistance...", that Joe was indeed one or both. This leads to the question of how she knew Joe was or wasn't involved in both issues, the very status of which she is now using to justify her current actions.
Joe has a tailor-made lawsuit and I hope he pursues it and forces the guilty to testify under oath.