Re: Window Security Recommendations

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42a8e036$1_4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > I seen them. I know who and why the whole thing got started.
>
> I do too.  The e-mails, al;ong with the false accusations of murder, etc.,
> all came from this newsgroup.

Slow down Robert, the e-mails did not come from this newsgroup. If the
plantiff seen info from this newsgroup, just how many other lurkers have
seen it. Toole has never posted here, at least for the couple of years I've
been around.

  Some of the garbage they tried to use was
> also quoted from Sabodish's hate website.

I have seen it, as well as, other "supposed" pubic record posts. What I
haven't seen, on your behalf, is any proof to off set these acquisations or
heard of any legal actions you brought, against the posters for slander,
defamation of character, damage to your business, etc. I really don't have
an interest in whether they are true or not because it doesn't effect me one
way or another. However, when something is left out there unchallanged,
people will believe it to be true.

  I showed the rest of it to the
> state investigator.  It took him about 15 minutes to realize the complaint
> was bogus.

First, it wasn't Reddinger was it? Secondly, it is not up to the
investigator to decide whether the complaint was bogus or not. He may have
an opinion, and if he shares that with you, shame on him, but he is not a
State Attorney. He or she gathers information, period.

  It took even less for him to consider Mugford's behaviour

Canadian now are we?

> totally inappropriate.

He may have an opinion but again I think it more placation.

> > I know who contacted Neely for information...
>
> Toole, another pal of Mugford's.

Toole probably knows Mugford but their geographical locations hardly make
them neighbors. If they see each other more that three or four times a year
I would be suprised and that would only be at industry functions.
>
> > who happens to be the ED of the AAF and not
> > a state employee...
>
> Yes, I got that wrong at first.
>
> > to find out if you were a member and...
>
> I read his reply.  It was a bald-faced lie.  One of the nice things about
> these idiots is they can't help making up garbage.

Making up garbage and passing on information that has been made public are
two different things, Robert.

> > Member support is one of Neely's jobs...
>
> So now "member support" includes accusing non-members of murder?  What
kind
> of jackass did you guys elect?

I will guarantee Neely did not go to this NG and find out anything about you
or anyone else. The most he would have done is pass along info from e-mails
gathered from inquires. Between Tampa and Ft Meyers, there are over a
hundred member companies in your area that may know something about RBL and
Robert, I must be honest, there are some that don't have the highest regard
for you as I am sure there are some that don't have the highest regard for
me. That comes with the territory but they have their opinions, and again
that is their right.
>
> > Not to file complaints, but if asked a
> > question by a member, he will answer it...
>
> Without even bothering to check that what he's saying is utter nonsense.
> Very nice.  Next time you see him, tell him what a fool he played by
quoting
> lies from Sabodish, Mugford and a few other jerks without checking first.

What have you done to discredit the acquisations that these people are
finding about you Robert? Are you going to just let the info hang out there
unchallanged?

> > The call was directed to me because
> > of my knowledge of who's who in the
> > State. After a discussion about who you
> > are and what your main focus is, the
> > party dug further into your website,
> > got a copy of your monitoring agreement
> > and filed a complaint with the DBPR.
>
> I saw the complaint.  It was based on a deliberate misreading of the
Florida
> statute.

Did the State Attorney deliberately misread the Statute before she found
probable cause and sent out the investigator?

 The complaint was dismissed because they presented no evidence of
> wrong doing -- only false accusations which did not stand up to the light
of
> day.

It was dismissed because the two attorneys could not agree on the particular
part of the Statute. That was good for you.

> > That is where Reddinger came into play.
> > I've known about it for awhile.  Can't stop
> > someone from persueing what they
> > believe...
>
> They knew all along the law is on my side but decided to give it a shot
> anyway.

The State Attorneys office doesn't have the time, money or man power to play
games Robert. If they set up the case, someone believed in it pretty hard.

> > Also seen your post accusing Mugford
> > of instigating it...
>
> You're darned right he did.

Believe what you want but no he didn't. It looks like Mugford is getting
under your skin. Again, I know why Toole started this in the first place and
it had nothing to do with Mugford. It had to do with...............well, you
went RL with his address, etc. publically. I am sure you can contact him to
find out why.

 He's friends with everyone else that was
> involved and they cited the same false accusations he has made.

So because Mugford knows Toole and Neely, he is guilty? What's with that.
The info is public Robert. Any ones grandchildren with a computer can see
what is on the net. Right or Wrong. Challange it.

  I know you
> and he are friends but you really ought to open your eyes about this guy.
> He's a sneaky, conniving liar and he'd cut your throat (metaphorically,
one
> hopes) in a minute if he thought it would gain him anything.

You have concluded all of this because of his involvement in this NG? He has
gotten under your skin, Robert. You make it sound like you have known him
personally for a long time and have had alot of business dealings with him.
I have known him a long time and have had professional dealing with him for
just as long. I fail to see what you are trying to convey. Does he have fun
with you on this NG, maybe, but so does every other regular. I think the
difference is that these others are long distance, hiding under pseudo
names, have no threat to you or your business, etc. but possibly, and just
possibly, in the back of your mind, you see Mugford or his position on the
ECLB, which you have in the past stated you have no respect for, as a
potential threat (not physically) whether he or the Board is or isn't. So
you snarl at him the loudest. He's gotten to you. Just an observation.
>
> > If in fact there would have been a problem
> > arise out of your situation, as I have said
> > before, it wouldn't go in front of Mugford
> > or the Board he sits on...
>
> That isn't the point.  He used his personal relationship with Toole and
> Neely to get them to do it for him.

Absolutely wrong.

  No way was he going to hang his name on
> it since he knows that would come out immediately.

I know all of the tea in China won't change your belief and if Mugford knows
you think that, well then, he got you again, didn't he?.
>
> > The ECLB does not handle unlicensed activity...
>
> Nothing I do requires a license.  Mugford knows that.  You know it.  So
did
> Toole and Neely

Evidently, there is at least one State Attorney and one head investigator,
that took it for probable cause, that believes otherwise. If it were not for
one other attorney in the state, you may have needed an attorney to present
your side. I am not judging, just stating the fact.

but they went along with it on Mugsy's behalf.

Wow... I guess Mugford is king and Toole and Neely are his pawns. You
obviously give him more credit than you let on.

> > I know he likes to bust your balls...
>
> Probably because he hasn't any himself.

Not worth commenting on.....

 We're not supposed
> to have Mugs McGinnis presiding over the ECLB.

Why would you care? You don't fall under the ECLB. You might fall under the
DBPR, but not the ECLB. That is were your whole thing falls apart. No matter
how many time it has been said, Mugford has no jurisdiction over you or your
business. He is no different than your next door neighbor. In this NG or
anywhere else he is joe citizen and has all of the freedoms as anyone else.
His comments to you weigh no more than yours to him. Because he holds a
position on the Licensing Board gives you the right to throw tomatoes at him
in public without getting them thrown back? C'mon. You know as well as I do,
this place is nothing more that passing on some answers to those that asked,
but mostly kicks and giggles. I will guarantee that if you were ever to be
in front of him at the Board, which will never happen anyway, you would be
treated with professionalism.

> > I know her superior that knock it down
> > because of the way the statute is worded...
>
> Uh-huh.  In other words, the law doesn't require a license for what I do.

Evidently, there has been some debate at the state level over this. Maybe
you'll get a law or rule named after you. Cool eh!

> It never did because that was not the intent of the legislature.

I am not going to debate this issue. The only thing I will say is, because I
was around when this went down, that the writing and interpetation is not
always what the intent was. Something like the "I can think , I just can't
type" statement we've all seen here before. Mistakes can only be corrected
as they are found.

 They have
> no interest in regulating services provided out of state by third party
> vendors who are also located in other states.

I will agree with you on this.

  Their concern is regulating
> businesses which service and monitor alarms in Florida.

Or provide "contract"ing services from the State of Florida.

>I don't do that

I guess that is what was in guestion.

> I guess you could say that the "way the law is worded" exempts me.

For now

 That was
> the conclusion of the person who investigated the phoney complaint.

The complaint wasn't phoney. It was real or the investigator wouldn't have
shown up at your door. As far as the conclusion, it wasn't his or her
decission.

  That
> was also the opinion of the SA in charge.

Not her's either.....it was her superior that decided that because of the
grayness of that particular part of the Statute, they weren't going to spend
the money to persue it.

  Funny how things have a way of
> working out just right no matter what these [persons of questionable
> parentage] try to do.

Yeah, I guess the investigators figure...win some.....loose some

> The complaint was bogus from the start.  Don't >forget I have a
> verbartim copy of everything these slobs submitted.

I would hope so. It is your right. But don't think the state trashed your
file. That is one thing about these situations. It is like toilet paper on
your shoe. You don't realize its there but everyone else sees it and they
are able to judge for themselves how it got there.

> > Being active legislatively, I know there is
> > a rewrite of the Statute to get it up to
> > speed with how business is being done
> > these days but that will be a slow pains
> > taking task...
>
> There's nothing in the offing about regulating out-of-state activities,
even
> those of business whose offices are located in Florida.

You weren't watching the legistative session very close this year by making
that statement Robert. There was a bill in the Senate and a companion bill
in the House addressing that exact situation. The bill was sponsored by a
Senator that happens to be in your area as a matter of fact. If you would
like, I'll will get you the senate and house bill numbers so you can look
them up. They'll make you nervous. The good news for you, this year, is that
they were killed due to the fact that NECA (National Electrical Contractors
Association) attached their journeyman requirement language to the bill. The
bill was killed because this government is not union friendly. I am sure we
will see the Senator's bill again next year. Evidently it is a bigger
problem than just RBL and in many different trades. Florida doesn't want to
be known as a safe haven.You go'in to blame Mugford for this one too?

> > Did your situation go RL? Yep.
>
> My "situation" didn't go RL.  Mugford went RL, using his pals in the state
> association to try to cover his butt.  If you believe otherwise you're
> kidding yourself.

I don't just believe otherwise, I know otherwise. I am the one in personal
contact with these people. I have nothing better to do than be in personal
contact with people all over the State. Not only for this business but for
our other business, as well. I know what people are doing. Knowledge is
power, assumptions are just that.
>
> > But it didn't have anything to do with
> > any posts or discussions from this NG
> > or anyone that has ever posted here.
>
> Perhaps you didn't see the "evidence" these morons submitted.  Included
were
> several posts from this newsgroup.

They may have been included in the complaint to try to outline character,
but was not the reason that Toole came after you.
>
> > Trust me.
>
> I do but you're mistaken about Mugford.  He's much worse than you think he
> is.

Well, I know him, his position (which I was one that recommended him and
three others to the Governor for appointment, and after investigation, two
of the four were appointed to the two available Board seats), his business,
his wife, his kids, and some of his employees. If you got to know him
outside the NG, you may not have the same opinion you tote know, but to each
their own.
>
>