Re: A new twist

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> Olson is lying (as usual).  The state investigator found that the complaint (filed at Mugford's behest) was without merit.  If he
> thought otherwise they would have taken it farther as they invariably do.


Why bother?  It's the same thing that happened when you got "nailed" by
the CT licensing authority in another "installation fairy tale" you told
us.  The guy asked to see the electrical permit on a job and you
responded with some nonsense about:  "What permit?  I didn't know I
needed one."

During the course of the State investigating your company, you
"discussed" certain aspects of your business with them.  When you found
out that executing monitoring agreements *in Florida* was arguably a
licensable practice (under the Florida Statute), you dropped it like a
hot potatoe.  It's doubtful you will ever admit to the truth of the
matter though, since "truth" is a term you are completely unfamiliar with.

Let's see...  I found out you were providing the DSC software as a "free
download" from your website, and *co-incidental* to my contacting the
DSC rep, that software suddenly became unavailable...

You were being investigated for unlicensed activity by the Florida State
Attorney General and *co-incidental* to that investigation you stopped
selling monitoring service...

If we ask the OP in the "Gemini P3200" thread to post the link you sent
him to the software, do you think it just might have a "bassburglarlarm"
address?  If he does post the link, will it still work, or
"co-incidentally" go to one of your "oops, wrong link" pages?