Re: For Robert

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qiflf159uqmk61v9rg3b3oplar4e3v7fo9@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:28:07 GMT, "Frank Olson"
> <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Since you've forgotten Bob Worthy's questions, I thought I'd dig 'em up
for
> > you...  as a professional courtesy.

> > "I wasn't refering to suing someone Robert.
> > Just prove these suppposed "lies" are untrue
> > here on this NG....
>
> Which lies?  You've told so many...

If you are confused about who you are answering, I can understand, but if
you are saying that I have told lies then you are terribly mistaken. I am to
old for childish antics.
>
> > This is where the accusations are coming from
> > and the accusations are substantiated with Public
> > Record...
> > It is a simple question and only requires a simple
> > answer, "Yes" or "No". Are these accusations all
> > fabricated?
>
> Which accusations?

The accusations that you have accused people of relaying about you. No need
to be coy, Robert.

> > Did you author the "Testimony"? Simple question,
> > simple answer...
>
> That one's easy.  Not in it's current form.  Someone else edited
> it.  The original message was a private e-mail between myself and
> another person.  That individual placed the e-mail on a web site
> without my permission.  I asked him to remove it and he did.
> However, the lengthy story posted on the MM's hate web site has
> little to do with what I originally wrote.

Is that a big *YES* or a big *NO*? It sounds like a *Maybe* but most likely,
a **I'll get back to you on that**
>
> > That is what I mean by challanging these things rather
> > than just letting them float aroung out there."
>
> It makes no difference whether I challenge or ignore the nonsense
> you and the other idiots post.  You continue spouting trash
> either way.

Challanging the nonsense with facts out weights ignoring the issue by
dropping out. I don't recall spouting trash about your unless it is the
kicks and giggles that you refer to. Its all harmless as you can see because
you calling me an idiot doesn't bother me in the least. It is simply your
favorite description for everyone pokes fun at you.
>
> > "You have a copy of the report, correct?
>
> Now you're speaking of the false accusations made by two of
> Mugford's pals on his behalf.  Yes, I have a copy, including the
> claims that I supposedly murdered someone, etc.

All of that for a *Yes*

> > Did Mugford being a jackass make the investigators report?"
>
> Mugford got his pals to do his dirty work.  If he had made such
> accusations directly I would indeed have taken him to court.  It
> failed miserably because the investigator found out almost
> immediately they were lying -- no murder even occurred, no
> unlicensed activity was being performed, no regulated services
> are or were offered within the state of Florida.

All of that for a *No*

> > "If you didn't fall under the DBPR, why did they do an
> > investigation on you?"
>
> They investigated the complaint from Mugford's pals and found it
> was without merit.

The State Attorney's office disagreed on the investigation information but
that was prior to July 1, 2005. New laws closing any questions came into
effect. I already sent you the legislation.
>
> > "Excuse me, you aren't doing contract monitoring service?

> Not in Florida.

When did you move?

> The agreement and the services offered therein are not offered in
> Florida.  You seem to have a hard time understanding that

No, you choose to ignore the fact, as stated in the Statute, that if you
enter into a contract for compensation, you are in the contracting business,
which is the real issue, regardless of what the service is. You seem to want
to hang your hat on the definition of what monitoring is and continue to
ignore the fact that you are receiving compensation through your business
activity of writing contracts. Is one that enters into contracts for
compensation, not a "contractor"? You need to read the Statute in its
entirety, put yourself or your business in each section and ask yourself
truefully, "Does this pertain to my activity"? You will answer *Yes* to more
than one section. Make sure you get the latest print of the Statute.

 > it has been clearly stated on my web site for years.

That you have been entering into contracts for compensation from a business
location in Florida. Yes, I know.

> > and now you say you are billing and collecting monitoring
> > fees payable to an address in Florida.

 > The statute is quite specific about what is and what is not regulated.

As you interpet it. You obviously have read only one part of the Statute and
Rules. I pointed this out to you many moons ago. I said then that I wasn't
going to do your homework for you.

> > Are you running a different set of books that the investigator
> > may not have been privy of ?"
>
> If you believe that I am, file another bogus complaint.

I didn't file one to begin with. Don't get so flustered.

>It'll find its way to the dust bin just as fast as your first attempt.

Are you saying that I filed the complaint?

> > The part about Robert not being home when the State
> > Investigator came over (several times) was particularly
> > interesting.
>
> Care to substantiate that?

Only that the investigators were at your home at different times to never
find you home and even talked with neighbors to find out about your where
abouts or your return. It is hearsay but from the DBPR.

> The same web pages were read by the state investigator.  He found
> no evidence of wrongdoing.

The investigator doesn't know since they only collect facts for the State
Attorney office. The investigators don't know or are they expected to know
every section of every statute they must deal with. It is not their job.
They are investigating 61 different industries. That investigator could have
been to a funeral home, then a veterinary office, then to an architects
office, a land surveyors office and then three beauty shops before he got to
you. It is not their job to find you guilty or innosent. And besides, your
web pages were read prior to sending the investigator out and obviously, at
least one State Attorney, found probable cause or they wouldn't have sent
out an investigator for more information. You are probably lucky, guilty or
innosent, there were questions between the State Attorneys about some
interpetations. For all interested parties, did you receive anything saying
your case was closed? A simple yes or no will do. Be careful, because I can
get the right answer but out of professional courtesy, I'll let you give it.
I don't want to be accused of spewing trash.