Re: the police was dispatched to ... the wrong house

["Roland More" <NoSpamroland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Feel free to connect the dots anyway you like. I won't confirm or deny your
connections. I don't feel like walking in Jim Rojas' shoes with the Brinks
monster. Being right or reasonable isn't going to save the wallet from the
legal cashectomy resulting from telling the truth. I have been to Federal
Court. The only attorneys I feel comfortable going with back in that
dangerous place have a 25K minimum retainer fee. I have not identified
anyone or any company specifically here. However some company might take
particular exception and start taking the legal bluster route. I don't
believe that would serve anyone's interests. It might be interesting to see
if there are any other posts saying it ain't so. I doubt there will be, but
if there are maybe then some FedEx tracking numbers would come in handy? If
not, I still have the names, dates, times, places and faces. I don't have an
agenda to try and besmirch any person or company. However what happened did
happen. Trying to pretend I am full of it isn't going to help anyone truly
trying to address a problem like this. No one should rejoice at any of this.
It is bad for everyone involved and for the industry as a whole. People are
counting on us. When things break down like this I believe it is a message
that everyone should take more into account and recheck everything to be
certain nothing in their own house is in out of order. This is a details
business. It means testing, and checking, and second guessing yourself and
everyone else up and down the line, as often as you can. I learned a lesson
here not to allow anyone else to fat finger a panel that you are ultimately
responsible for, especially when you cannot quickly verify what was done or
not done.

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sNDxi.174$ni6.88@xxxxxxxxxxx
> OK, let's make sure we're all clear on this.  You
> say that Monitronics disabled monitoring on all
> of the dealer's accounts and didn't even notify
> the dealer or the customers?  Monitronics
> continued to charge the dealer for monitoring
> the alarms even though they were no longer
> being monitored?
>
> And do I also understand clearly that Monitronics
> has a policy of locking out not only the end user
> but even the installing dealer from programming
> the accounts?
>
> Come to think of it, isn't Leuck the one who says
> most systems are not locked out like this?  Talk
> about dishonesty.  This Leuck guy is worse than
> Olson.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
> =============================>
> Bass Home Electronics
> 941-925-8650
> 4883 Fallcrest Circle
> Sarasota · Florida · 34233
> http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
> =============================>
>
>> Okay. If I am a story teller, I want to tell a story. Suppose there a
>> company that has an employee that has a last name that sounds like say
>> LIKE for example. This is not a real company mind you. Suppose that
>> company through its infinite wisdom and at the same time infinite
>> departmental compartmentalization has made a blunder that has somehow
>> turned into a policy. Suppose that policy is to do something really
>> stupid, but it is a policy. And everyone knows no one can question policy
>> in any big mother ship company. Perhaps that policy is related to a
>> certain line of proprietary panels the mother ship company uses. In real
>> life these panels don't actually exist, nor does the policy, or the
>> company for that matter. Suppose if you are a dealer of this panel you
>> can't program it locally or remotely, only the big mother ship can do
>> that. Well suppose you're sick of that, as well as being sick of the big
>> mother ship company and want to be able to program the panels at least
>> locally yourself. Perhaps you want to change monitoring facilities away
>> from the big mother ship as well someday, but only someday in the future.
>> So the big mother ship calls the panels and puts in a code that allows
>> you to access and program the panels locally. You still can't call the
>> panels up since they are locked up for the mother ship only to remotely
>> program. Well that is great, the big mother ship calls up all, yes every
>> single one of your panels and puts in a code that allows you, the local
>> dealer that owns the accounts, to program the panels locally. What a
>> concept, a dealer that can actually program his own panels. So what is
>> the problem here? The dealer can program his own panels and the big
>> mother ship continues to monitor the accounts and bill for it and
>> everyone is happy, right? (At this point I like to think that LIKE is
>> reaching for the Rolaids because he just may know of this policy, and if
>> he really doesn't yet know the story, he knows a train wreck is very near
>> at hand). The policy? Yes the policy. What might that be? Well when the
>> mother ship tells you the code to get into the panels, perhaps the
>> default factory code for example, and even if it keeps billings you for
>> monitoring the panels, the policy says to remove the account number and
>> the central station receiver number from each and every panel they put a
>> code in that the local dealer can access. Wait a minute, that is all of
>> the accounts, yet the mother ship still bills you for monitoring all of
>> the accounts? Oh but they don't tell you any of that, they bill you and
>> say your accounts are fine and being monitored like before. Many dealers
>> here wouldn't understand how a panel can be monitored without an account
>> number or a central station receiver number programmed in the panel. But
>> they like don't understand LIKE. If the dealer doesn't find all this out
>> on his own, the mother ship waits until say someone gets broken into,
>> perhaps suffers a loss, and then the mother ship pays restitution to the
>> end user and hush money to the dealer. Perhaps that is policy too? Of
>> course LIKE can say it never happened. But as they say now you know the
>> rest of the story, that never happened. Some big companies pay money to
>> folks to make sure stories like this one that never happened never get
>> told to anyone. I wonder if like LIKE anyone can explain that policy? I
>> guess it's something like policy stinks sometimes, and stinks a lot
>> coming out of a big inept lying corporate ass. It sure is funny how there
>> are some corporate checks I have had my hands on recently, with names
>> that sound an awful lot like names in a police report I have had my hands
>> on recently as well. Maybe I should post pictures of them all together
>> somewhere the next time I get accused of being a story teller. Maybe then
>> someone could connect the dots. Just maybe.
>>
>> "Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:46c6435e$0$11001$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:46c5e5f6$0$18909$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Every company can screw up. Bigger companies tend to threaten and
>>>> bluster
>>>> their way through problems, especially when they're in the wrong,
>>>> mostly
>>>> because they can. That said, I don't have 25K in legal fees I want to
>>> throw
>>>> down a rat hole just to spar and prove a point that is already proven,
>>>> (because the check was in the mail so to speak).  What little cryptic
>>>> information I gave Leuck is more than enough for an insider to find out
>>> what
>>>> went down at Monitronics, even from a former insider. If he bothers to
>>> take
>>>> a sniff, I doubt he'll make any more noise about it, especially here on
>>> this
>>>> NG, it really stinks. If he finds out through official channels, I am
>>>> sure
>>>> he'll be told to officially shut the hell up about it.
>>>
>>> Monitronics has never told me to shut up about things posted here and
>>> never
>>> will, I seriously doubt anyone there other than me even knows this
>>> newsgroup
>>> exists. If you want to put up this bogus canard about 25k in legal fees
>>> for
>>> a lawsuit that isn't going to happen thats fine but so far you haven't
>>> given
>>> any information I remotely understand cryptic or not which is leading me
>>> to
>>> believe you are full of shit
>>>
>>> Either put up or shut up, I have a feeling I know which you'll choose
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>