Re: Window Security Recommendations

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"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.

Neither one of you have anything of real worth...


>
>> First, it wasn't Reddinger was it?
>
> Don't recall.  I lost his card.  Why don't you ask him?
>
>> Secondly, it is not up to the investigator to decide
>> whether the complaint was bogus or not...
>
> True, but his report carries great weight.  When he spoke to me he said
> that he had found no evidence of wrong-doing on my part and that his
> report would reflect that.

So...  is this "report" a matter of public record??  You have a copy of it??
Does it back up what you say or are you "interpreting" it's content in your
own peculiar way??


>
>> 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.

Uh-huh...  How much "trash" have *you* posted in Usenet, Robert??  Are you
familiar with the phrase "pot, kettle, black"??


>
>>  It took even less for him to consider Mugford's behaviour
>>
>> Canadian now are we?
>
> Naah, just a bad typist.  :^)

Rats!!  I thought you'd come to your senses and decided to use real
English!!  ;-))


>
>>> totally inappropriate.
>>
>> 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.

Did you show him a few "links" from stuff you posted as well??  Did you tell
him how completely innocent you were of any such behaviour and that these
attacks on you in Usenet are baseless??  That all you're trying to do is
"help" people install alarm systems, laying out, designing and selling
components??  That in the course of doing such you come under attack from
"big bad alarm companies" that quiver in fear of your business model??


>
>>>> 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.

I've known you for years as well...  I wouldn't consider you a "pal",
though...


>
>> 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...

I'll bet they talk about you all the time too...  ;-)


>
>>>> 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.

Hmmm...  so was your complaint to Graham's employer...  I would imagine it's
not pleasant having the tables turned on you like that...  not that I
believe anything you've stated here.  Besides...  you can "sugar coat" what
happened when you killed that young woman all you want...  You were in
control of a vehicle when you weren't fully in control of yourself.  The
responsibility for her death rests squarely on your shoulders.  Playing
"Russian Roulette" with her would have had the exact same consequences (her
death) and been just as irresponsible a use for a gun...  Murder:  "1.  The
unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with malice
aforethought;  3.  To kill (one or more human beings) brutally or inhumanly;
4.  To destroy or put an end to".  I'd say you "murdered" this young woman's
family's hopes and dreams for her.  I'd say killing someone in an automobile
accident is a pretty brutal way to do it.  "Murder" fits your crime.  The
fact that you weren't legally punished for it is a gross oversight on the
part of the responding authorities.


>
>>>> 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...
>
> I don't give a rat's jiminex where he went.  He passed on an accusation
> that he heard from Mugford -- the same lie Mugford posted here more than
> once.

Do I hear violins playing??


>
>> 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...
>
> None of whom have ever met me.  You're doing your level best to convince
> yourslef that it wasn't your pal, Mugford.  You're wrong, Bob.  It was
> him.

He has gotten under your skin...


>
>> 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.

You can't "find" much out about me either...  Or Jim (Alarminex)...  yet you
call us both "liars"...  Interesting...  There's solid proof that you lie on
Google...  There's evidence that you've posted false complaints to
competitor's websites, gone "real life" with people that you don't like or
who don't support your particular "mantra"...


>
>> 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 can't "challenge" the garbage you've posted on Usenet yourself.
Baseless accusations, lies, innuendo (some of it twisted and perverted)...
Any legal challenge you'd make in a court of law wouldn't survive close
scrutiny of your own behaviour...


>
>>> 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 outside the accusations of Mugford's pal, Toole.
> The investigator examined my company and found I was telling the truth.  I
> don't do anything that requires a license.  The case was dismissed by the
> state attorney's office for lack of evidence.

All of which you can prove, right??  Bob's version of this whole thing is
completely erroneous, right??


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

Heh....  right...


>
>>> 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.

Oh??  You've told Bob you'd removed a Brinks panel and even went so far as
to describe the telephone connection...  I'd say that qualifies as
"unlicensed activity" there Robert...  Do you sell security products to
people in Florida??  Do you "design, layout, and service" that equipment??


>
>> 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.

You need some help, there Robert.  This "persecution complex" has taken over
your life...


>
>>>> 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.

You mean like Graham??  What "dirt" are you going to invent here??  I'm
looking forward to seeing it...


>
>>> 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,

What "lie" was that??

> because Toole quoted from the same hate website that Mugford contributed
> to,

If you think for one minute (and you know this to be true), people have very
little say as to what Mike posts on his Goofy website.

Except Leuck of course.  :-))



> 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.

Guilty of what??


>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

Ah...  but taking the "vermin" to court would mean exposing yourself as
well...  That's definitely not a pretty picture...


>
>>> 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.  The lies he has posted here
> only cemented my opinion of him.  The guy is scum.

Uh-huh...  and it looks to me that the lies you've posted here has pretty
well cemented the opinions of several others here about you...


>
>>> 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.

You *assume* a lot of things...  including that Worthy and Mugford are
"friends"...


>
>> 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.

I still have my doubts...  Your admitting to Rob that you'd removed a Brinks
panel only recently sort of flies in the face of everything you've said
about *not* engaging in service work that *requires* a license.


>
>>> 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.

Yep.  It sure does.  It *excludes* you from performing service which you've
admitted you've done.


>
>>> 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

That's "structures".

> located within the state.

Including removing professionally installed alarm equipment...

> It says nothing about contracts performed out of state by and for entities
> located outside the state.

Actually, the way the law reads it doesn't differentiate between work
performed in or out-of-state.  It clearly states that if you're involved in
"layout, design, and service" you must be licensed.

> If they tried to regulate such contracts the federal courts would toss the
> law out.  Interstate commerce falls within the pervue of the federal
> government.
>
>> The complaint wasn't phoney. It was real...
>
> Bullshit!

In *your* opinion...  But then we know your opinion doesn't count for much.


>
>> or the investigator wouldn't have shown up at
>> your door. As far as the conclusion, it wasn't
>> his or her decission.
>
> 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.  Try all you want to turn that around.

He's certainly not "trying" anything of the sort.  I think his explanation
of how things went down is a good deal more accurate than the "spin" you've
placed on the matter...


>
>>>  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.

There's a lot of "grayness" in the law.  You've pointed out examples
yourself...


>
>>>  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
>
> "Lose" not loose.

Uh-huh...  Sold any "surveilance" systems lately??


>
>>> > 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.

I'd be interested in seeing that too...


>
>> They'll make you nervous...
>
> Not likely.  Monitoring isn't a major profit center.  It takes too much
> time doing the billing for the return.  I've already decided not to
> continue offering it so even if ever they pass such a law it won't affect
> me.

Translation:  Robert's had to rethink the way his business model is
running... (in circles)...


>
> They won't license those who sell parts online.

Check.

> 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.

Only those that provide "layout, design, and service"...


>
> 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.  :^)

The sooner you're retired from this industry, the better...


>
>>>> 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...
>
> 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?

I'm sure he does.  It's what he said that went right over your head.


>
>>>> 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.

It figures you'd post your own "interpretation" of what happened here, and
include Norm in further personal attacks...


>
>> If you got to know him outside the NG...
>
> No thanks.  He's not the kind of person I want around me or my family.

That's funny...  I think a lot of people here feel the same way about you...


>
>> you may not have the same opinion you tote
>> know, but to each their own.
>
> 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.  He hasn't a
> scintilla of ethical prudence.  I'd sooner get to know Attila the Hun.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!!!

"Pot, kettle, black!!"