Re: For Robert

[Robert L Bass <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> 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...

Not in the least.  I was responding to Olson.  He was the
previous poster.  Perhaps a remedial course in Usenet would help
you to understand threaded conversations.

> I can understand, but if you are saying that I have
> told lies then you are terribly mistaken. I am too old
> for childish antics.

I won't debate your age but your assertion that you don't engage
in childish behavior online is a lie.  That's like Sabodish
pretending to be intelligent or Olson pretending to be... well,
anything.  Everyone knows it's not true.

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

Relaying?  Care to be more specific?

>>> 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*?

The answer is quite clear.  I wrote something but not what has
been posted repeatedly in this newsgroup by an idiot from NJ,
commonly known as the "MM".  I make no effort to hide the facts.
Many years ago I did some stupid things of which I am not at all
proud.  I paid dearly for those mistakes, nearly lost not only my
freedom but my life as well.  I learned from my mistakes, grew up
and changed.  What happened to you?

I also spent many years trying to help others turn from the same
paths I once trod.  That included volunteer work counseling
chemically dependant young people, prisoners and street people.
I was appointed to the board of directors of one of the more
successful programs for drug addicts and alcoholics.  I spent
almost every Sunday for more than eight years counseling and
preaching in prisons.  On more than one occasion I had inmates
released in my custody -- something of an accomplishment since
ordinarily they would have been forbidden from associating with
anyone with a previous conviction.

I also built and ran a small, modestly successful central station
alarm company, protecting homes and businesses throughout CT and
a few other states until I sold the business a few years ago.
Among my clients were state and federal judges, several policemen
and countless others.

Now my business is primarily focused on online sales of alarms,
home automation, structured wiring, multi-room audio/video
systems, intercoms and CCTV systems.  I'm also part owner of a
contract software development firm.

>> 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...

I think you meant to say "outweighs," but that is not true in
this newsgroup.  Most of the idiots, including several of your
pals, prefer to accept any wild claims without even bothering to
check them out.  That's why your buddies made the absurd
assertion that I murdered someone.  They read third-grade trash
from Sabodish and simply accepted it as fact, then repeated it in
the bogus complaint to the SA.

That is also why the complaint was so easily seen by the
investigator as nothing more than a personal attack.  I showed
him Sabodish's web site and Mugford's Usenet posts.  It took less
than 10 minutes for him to see your pals for the belligerent
fools they are.  End of investigation.  Case closed.  Care to
play again?

> 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.

Your idea of "kicks and giggles" might be somewhat different if
you were on the receiving end.  You behave like a schoolyard
punk, joining a few loud-mouthed bullies because you haven't the
integrity to stand up and say they're wrong.  Then you try to
excuse your repugnant behavior saying it's all just "innocent
fun."

> The State Attorney's office disagreed on the investigation
> information but that was prior to July 1, 2005...

Bullshit!  The SA sent an investigator.  He found no evidence of
wrongdoing, period.  In his report he stated that there was no
reason to continue.

> New laws closing any questions came into
> effect. I already sent you the legislation.

The state law says nothing about contracts performed outside the
state of Florida by third party monitoring facilities outside the
state for customers outside the state.  Our legislature, your BS
notwithstanding, has neither an interest in nor the legal
authority to regulate such services.

You and/or the rest of the IB have been claiming for years that I
was about to be shut down, that my business is failing, [insert
flame-of-the-week], etc.  Yet I'm still here and my business is
now the largest online security business in the state.  I'll be
doing the same thing and more of it until I retire in a few more
years.

>>> "Excuse me, you aren't doing contract monitoring service?
>
>> Not in Florida.
>
> When did you move?

I didn't.  Read the question and the answer again.

>> 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...

The statute governs contracting for services performed for
structures located in Florida.  Try reading the whole thing some
time.  I did.  It's really quite clear on that.  Read the
definition of monitoring service.  Read the exceptions.  After
you've done some real homework -- instead of posting BS about how
you wrote the law and handed it to the legislature to sign it for
you or whatever other drivel you like to spout -- come back and
apologize to everyone who reads this newsgroup for your
deliberate misrepresentations.

> which is the real issue, regardless of what the service
> is.

The real issue is the entire statute.  If you ever read (and
understood) the law you'd realize how absurd your position is.
The other possibility is that you already know I'm right but
you're lying.

So which is it?  Are you ignorant or are you lying?  It's a
simple question.  Give me your answer.

> 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...

You're being absurd.  The law defines monitoring as a service
performed for structures in Florida.  Services rendered outside
of Florida are not covered under the law.  You may wish it were
different but it isn't.  Your claim that "new laws" are coming is
irrelevant.

> 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...

I read the law before I opened business in Florida.  A state
investigator from the DBPR knows the law much better than you.
He said I don't need a license.  Case closed.

> truefully...

Truefully???

>> The statute is quite specific about what is and what is not regulated.
>
> As you interpet it....

Also as the Florida DBPR interprets it.  They seem to know the
law better than you.  Perhaps that's because they enforce the law
every day.

> You obviously have read only one part of the Statute
> and Rules.

Do you think that capitalizing the words, "statute" and "rules"
makes your post look official?

> I pointed this out to you many moons ago...

Many moons ago?  White man speak with forked tongue, Kimosabe.

> I said then that I wasn't going to do your homework
> for you.

No need.  Just do your own.  You have your assertions to back
your claims.  I have the decision of the DBPR to back mine.
Remember the word, "outweigh" which you tried to use earlier?

>>> 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.

I didn't say you had.  Your involvement was limited to
consultation with the other morons who did the deed.  Don't
forget I have a printout of their e-mails conversations with you.

>>> 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.

It is hearsay, but not from the DBPR.  It was a BS post from
another of the idiots in ASA -- nothing more.

>> 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...

That's really too funny.  He can't possibly know since he only
deals in facts.  Have you memorized "Animal Farm" or something?

> 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...

Strangely enough, the State Attorney's office, after reviewing
the *facts* collected by the investigator and comparing them to
the absurd allegations by Mugford's pals, determined that you are
wrong.  Of course, that's only *fact* so feel free to ignore it.

> That investigator could have been to a funeral home...

How sad.

> then a veterinary office...

His dog died?

> then to an architects office...

A building collapsed on his dog???

> a land surveyors office...

The dog was peeing on a construction site when the building came
down?  That must have been really shoddy work.  Where is your
permit for the job?

> and then three beauty shops...

It was a show dog?  What a complicated situation.  Imagine the
poor inspector trying to sort out veterinary bills, make funeral
arrangements for poor Lassie and contend with all those phone
calls from the newspapers and lawyers wanting to offer their
services.

> before he got to you...

That explains everything.  If his dog had lived he probably would
have arrested Sabodish for advertising services (even though no
contracts have ever been signed) in the state of Georgia (after
all, they _are_ right next to Florida) and then stayed for some
of my world-renowned burgers.  After all that trauma he must have
been exhausted.  :)

> It is not their job to find you guilty or innosent...

They never find anyone 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...

They found probably cause to investigate.  Upon investigating
they determined there was no evidence of wrongdoing so they
closed the matter.

> You are probably lucky, guilty or innosent

I don't know anyone who is innosent.  My friends say I'm
incredibly lucky.  I figure it's mostly just hard work.

> ...there were questions between the State Attorneys
> about some interpetations...

You keep saying that but there's nothing in the investigative
report and nothing in the public documentation to support it.  As
best I can tell, you're either repeating BS from one of the other
idiots or lying.  I don't care which it is.

> For all interested parties, did you receive anything saying
> your case was closed? A simple yes or no will do.

Read the state's web site.

> Be careful, because I can get the right answer but out
> of professional courtesy...

You're joking, right?

> I don't want to be accused of spewing trash.

Then stop doing so.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com