In response to questions that have been raised

Whether or not the allegations that have been made against Gil Lovato are true.

The question has been answered. It was answered in the results of the investigations that were done; one by an external and impartial, private investigator; the other done by APS internally.

If you could see the results, you would know that the allegations were proven true by a preponderance of sworn testimony and evidence; or not. The case is solved. The only thing you don't know; is any part of the truth.

The results of both investigations are public records. The phrase public record means something very specific and important. In particular, it is important because if it is a public record, you have the right to inspect and or copy it.

The law provides specific exceptions; you can't ask for medical records, or letters of reference, or a very few other kinds of records. Everything that is not excepted specifically and expressly; is not excepted.

Beth Everitt says these are "confidential records" and therefore excepted from the NMIPRA.

What do you think? Do the results of these two investigations fit this exception for confidential records? ... from the Attorney General's commentary on this part of the law.

The Confidential Materials Act (codified at NMSA 1978, §§ 14-3A-1 to -2) permits any library, college, university, museum or institution of the state or any of its political subdivisions to keep confidential materials of historical or educational value on which the donor or seller has imposed restrictions on access for a specified period. The statutory protection does not apply if the documents donated or sold were public records as defined by the Inspection of Public Records Act while in the possession of the donor or seller at the time of the sale.

Beth Everitt says these are "personnel" records. They are not personnel records by any reasonable interpretation of the word. Beth Everitt is lying. But just for the heck of it; assume that they are personnel records;

OK; so what? There is no exception in the NMIPRA for "personnel" records.

Beth Everitt has an exception to the NMIPRA only in so far as it is provided for her, by expensive lawyers on the public's dime.

There are only two possibilities: the papers in the boxes prove that Gil Lovato is guilty of something; or they don't.

If the records prove guilt; Everitt has a responsibility to hold Lovato accountable for his misconduct. Although she is on record as saying even if there is criminal misconduct; she hasn't decided whether or not to turn it over to the DA.

If the records prove innocence; Everitt has a responsibility to clear Lovato's name.

Yet her decision is to deliberately violate the law to suppress the truth; even litigating against the NMIPRA to keep the records secret. She is deliberately breaking the law and using public resources to escape accountability.

There is only one reason to hide the truth.

What reason would APS have not hold Lovato accountable for mishandling money?

The leadership of the APS cannot afford to fight Lovato in court. He has body maps to barter with. APS will get its ass handed to it if the truth comes out. So Lovato's maps are only worth money if he can threaten to spill them out on the floor of a courtroom. The bummer for Lovato is that there is no way that APS can give him any money right now.

The big looser here is Lovato; he isn't even going to get money for Bregman's bill. Unless they actually intend to sue taxpayers because the leadership of the aps didn't fire Lovato. Juris Mustelidae; great work if you can get it.

So who is going to get to see the truth beside the leadership of the APS? Will Ray Schultz and Darren White see the truth; the truth being that one, the other, or both of their departments allowed their computers to be used illegally by the leadership of the APS; allegedly.

Will the DA see the truth?

Will the NM Attorney General see the truth?

Who holds the leadership of the APS accountable for public corruption and criminal conspiracy?