Re: Window Security Recommendations

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2-CdnZHg0sw2GTffRVn-gA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > However, when something is left out there
> > unchallanged, people will believe it to be true.
>
> The reason I never sued Sabodish is he has no assets.  It would be a waste
> of time and money.  As for Mugford, you never know.

I wasn't refering to suing someone Robert. Just prove these suppposed "lies"
are untrue here on this NG. This is where the accusations are coming from
and the accusations are substantiated with Public Record. Are they true or
not? It is a simple question and only requires a simple answer, "Yes" or
"No". Are these accusations all fabricated? Again, a simple question that
requires a simple answer. Did you author the "Testimony"? Simple question,
simple answer. That is what I mean by challanging these things rather than
just letting them float aroung out there.

> > First, it wasn't Reddinger was it?
>
> Don't recall.  I lost his card.  Why don't you ask him?

He is over 11 local State department locations. I am not going to bother him
with such lunacy, but I find it difficult to believe that you have all of
the doc's from the investigation, but the investigators name is no where to
be found. I told you these posts are full of kicks and giggles.
>
> > Secondly, it is not up to the investigator to decide
> > whether the complaint was bogus or not...
>
> True

> > 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.
>
> Yep, and the State's Attorney reads his report and makes a decision
whether
> to go forward based ***mostly*** on that.  Baseless accusations from a
bunch of
> jerks who spend their time posting trash in Usenet are not evidence.

That is why you couldn't sue anyone

> > He may have an opinion but again I think it more placation.
>
> And that would be your opinion.  Then again, you weren't there.  FTR, I
> didn't show him "my" archive.  I gave him a couple of links and let him
see
> for himself what a jackass Mugford is.

You have a copy of the report, correct? Did Mugford being a jackass make the
investigators report? Didn't think so.

> >>> 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...
>
> I didn't say they were neighbors.  They've known each other for years
> through the association.
>
> > 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.
>
> Golfing, trips to the capitol, ISC shows, CEDIA conferences, after-hours
> parties at every one of the above...

Neither plays golf, Toole's trips to the capitol don't have anything to do
with the ECLB, Toole doesn't go to ISC on a regular basis (one in the last 6
years=1 in 12), besides being a licensed contractor, he works for a national
defense contractor, so he doesn't get to travel much. Neither go to CEDIA
and neither attend after hour parties that aren't open to everyone in the
industry, so where were you going with this one?
>
> >>> 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.
>
> Indeed.

 For example, they told Reddinger I had commited murder.  Like I
> said, the complaint was laced with bald-faced lies.

You just agreed that passing on info is different than making things up,
Robert. These "bald faced lies" have been left unchallanged by you. Leave
them out there and they will get passed along by those that believe they
must be true if you don't show they are false. Besides, the complaint wasn't
that you murdered someone now was it?

> > I will guarantee Neely did not go to this NG and
> > find out anything about you or anyone else...
>
> I don't give a rat's jiminex where he went.  He passed on an accusation
that
> he heard from Mugford

I am glad you said , "passed on". Now that we have cleared up the fact that
Neely didn't make up lies about you, we can leave him out of this.

>-- the same lie Mugford posted here more than once.

Posts that he did not make up, but passed on from info he received from this
NG.

 You're doing your level best to convince
> yourslef that it wasn't your pal, Mugford.  You're wrong, Bob.  It was
him.

Well, he has gotten under you skin so bad that, if you were pulled over for
speeding, you would be convinced Mugford had something to do with it or if
this is your way of trying to get me to tell you what instigated the
complaint from Toole, you are out of luck. The reason I can find out so much
from so many different sources is that they talk to me because they have
learned that they can trust me.
>
> > What have you done to discredit the acquisations
> > that these people are finding about you Robert?
>
> Finding?  These jackasses didn't "find" accusations.  Mugford lied.  PLain
> and simple.

So, Mugsy is the author of the "Testimony". He dubbed the Public Records
posts, and started  all of these acquisations single handedly. Is that what
I am hearing? All of this from one very brief unsolicited, accidental
bumping into at an EHX convention. Shame on you, Norm.
>
> > Are you going to just let the info hang out there
> > unchallanged?
>
> You expect me to take a half dozen morons to court for posting garbage in
> Usenet?

You forget that at one time you threatened to take me to court? I ask you
then if you were willing to spend alot of money to prove that you thought I
was a jackass.......well, I'm glad, if nothing else you realized it would be
an exercise in frutility to try to do anything to anyone legally involving
anything that comes out of this or any other NG.

> >> 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?
>
> Actually, she said that they would investigate *even though* there was no
> indication of wrong-doing

Yah.....she had nothing better to do that day. Musta been PMS. That should
go down as one of your most ignorant statements yet.

> The investigator examined my company and found I was telling the truth.  I
> don't do anything that requires a license.

You should have been home the first few times they tried to do the
investigation. Maybe the other agency's investigators, that accompanied the
DBPR investigator, would have found what **they** needed.

>The case was dismissed by the
> state attorney's office for lack of evidence.

A case being dimissed for the **lack of evidence** doesn't mean innocense.

> > It was dismissed because the two attorneys could
> > not agree on the particular part of the Statute.
>
> Bullshit!

Well turn about is fair, right. FTR, you weren't present.

>
> >> 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.
>
> I was referring to Mugford's pals, Toole & Neely.
>
> > If they set up the case, someone believed in
> > it pretty hard.
>
> More likely some member of the ECLB gave someone a phone call and asked
for
> a favor.

Give me a break Robert, your giving yourself to much credit.

> >>> 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 tried to destroy my business as a favor for his jackass pal on the
ECLB.
> You're damn right I posted his address.  He deserves to be embarassed and
a
> heck of a lot more.

Why would that embarass him? The only thing it shows is your MO. So, we have
here your admission to going RL with people in a Public Forum.
Interesting..... because you post that everyone lies about your antics but
then you admit them to be true. Amazing. So is the other stuff that you say
are lies really true or not true?

> >> 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?
>
> Because Mugford posted the exact same lie, because Toole quoted from the
> same hate website that Mugford contributed to, because Mugford told me to
my
> face at the EH Expo that there was an ongoing investigation **before**
there
> was any public record of it, he's guilty.

Since when is an investigation public until it is final? I'll bet all of the
crocks are interested in that bit of info.

> The only way to challenge it is to take several of these vermin to court.
I
> don't care to do so.  If you believe that somehow validates the crap these
> idiots post, you're not as intelligent as I thought.

I told you before, I don't pay any attention to any of it other than for
entertainment purposes. It doesn't affect me one why or another, but it is
obvious, by not discrediting these "lies" as you put it, that they can be
used to discredit you, whether successful or not

> >> 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?
>
> Before he started all the crap he told me about some nasty things he did
to
> a competitor using his clout on the board.

Would that be another "unlicensed contractor" in his area that was shut
down? Not once, but twice and is now looking at a felony charge for ignoring
the cease and desist order, for the third time, from State Attorney office.

  > >> That isn't the point.  He used his personal relationship with Toole
and
> >> Neely to get them to do it for him.
> >
> > Absolutely wrong.
>
> You *assume* so but then you're his friend.
>
> > Why would you care? You don't fall under the
> > ECLB. You might fall under the DBPR, but
> > not the ECLB.
>
> Nope.  None of the above.

If you didn't fall under the DBPR, why did they do an investigation on you?

> >> 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!
>
> No need.  The licensing law is already on the books and it specifically
> excludes what I do.

Go to Chapter 489 Part II (489.503) Exemptions. Where is that you fall under
this part? Not with just your internet sales, but the rest of what you do.

> >> 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.
>
> Wrong.  The law concerns work performed in the state or for persons and
> strucvtures located within the state.  It says nothing about contracts
> performed out of state by and for entities located outside the state.  >

> His conclusion, which was the only real evidence presented to the SA, was
> that there's nothing illegal in my business, that I don't require a
license.


> The SA's office discussed it and decided he was right (and so am I) and
that
> was the end of it.

> >>  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.
>
> Oh, come off it, Bob.  There's no "grayness" in the law.  It says quite
> clearly that "monitoring" is defined as services performed for alarms
> located in Florida.  That's not gray.  It's black and white, plain as day.

Until you put a comma in that sentence and than the whole meaning changes,
hence the grayness. AND you know as well as anyone, law is challenged
everyday due to interpetation, so how can you say that is black and white.
If so, lawyers would be not existant.


> >> > 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.
>
> Sure.  That would make interesting reading.

Senate Bill 982 and House Bill 1207

> Not likely.  Monitoring isn't a major profit center.  It takes too much
time
> doing the billing for the return.

Excuse me, you aren't doing contract monitoring service? as you have stated
in these posts, yet from your website the state has a copy of your
monitoring agreement, and now you say you are billing and collecting
monitoring fees payable to an address in Florida. Are you running a
different set of books that the investigator may not have been privy of ?

> I've already decided not to continue
> offering it so even if ever they pass such a law it won't affect me.

And when did you arrive at this decision?Wheww......that was close....maybe
I better quit the monitoring thing before they figure out the intent of that
Statute and come back.
>
> They won't license those who sell parts online.

Your right.

  That would require them to
> license every Radio Shack, Home Depot, Loews and Ace Hardware employee in
> the state, not to mention every online dealer who sells parts to
Floridians
> from every other state.

Your right.
>
> By the time the legislature gets around to completely destroying the
> business environment of Florida, I'll be long since retired sipping
> caipirinhas on the beach in Brazil.

Your right.

> > They may have been included in the complaint...
>
> Let's see.  First it had nothing to do with posts in the newsgroup.  Now
it
> might have been included in the complaint.  Do you read what you type?

Why do you [snip] the complete post before you answer it? You [snipped] "to
outline character". "They may have be included in the complaint to outline
character..." Again, this information was not the basis for the complaint.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> It figures you'd defend him.

I am not defending anyone. Just the facts. This surfaced before Mugford knew
anything about it.

> So far what I've seen of him is a propensity to lie through his teeth, a
> willingness to use his influence to hurt a competitor

To be precise, an unlicensed competitor. It is a violation of Rule
61G6-10.002 (1) (c) of F.S. 455 not to report, to the Department, any person
who is violation of the licensing statute. Now who is spreading  information
that hasn't been substantiated.