Re: Window Security Recommendations

["Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>  It took even less for him to consider Mugford's behaviour
>
> Canadian now are we?

Naah, just a bad typist.  :^)

>> 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.

>>> 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...

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

>> 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.

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

Bullshit!

>> 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.

>>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.  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!

> 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.

>>  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.

>>  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.

>> > 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.

> 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.

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

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.  :^)

>>> 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?

>>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.