Re: Installers in Kentucky beware of HB-41

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t_YEj.483$Qv5.474@xxxxxxxxxxx
> "Bob Worthy" wrote:
> >
> > What is the definition of an investigator? Now does that equal a
prosecutor.
>
> You can find definitions in the dictionary if you like.  The person who
> visited was a state agent assigned to determine whether your pals'
complaint
> merited action.  That's his job.  He looked at my business, determined
there
> was nothing illegal, recommended the state dismiss the complaint and they
did
> so.

Correct up to the recommendation part

> > Wrong again. That was me that told you about the disagreement, and I
don't
> > care what you believe to be true or not true since you weren't there.
>
> You're as FOS as he is.  You said earlier that you were aware of the plan
to
> file the false complaint but that you were not involved.

I was aware of a complaint, I was contacted by a dealer in the NW part of
the state about the reason for the complaint, but I had nothing to do with
its filing.

  So which is it?
> Were you lying then, now or all along?

The disagreement happened in Tallahassee between two lady attorneys, one
want to prosecute the case and the other, did not do to technicalities. The
technicalities where corrected in the next legislative session. But, you
don't need to take my word for it. Just read the definition, of "monitoring"
prior to your investigation and then read the following revision of the
Statute, which would have been in June following that next legislative
session.

> > He had only one superior and that was the Govenor.
>
> Bullshit!  He doesn't work directly for the governor.

Your right again Robert. I don't know what I was thinking. He volunteers his
time for the people of the State of Florida.

> >> You ignore the fact that no Florida premises were monitored.

Not ignoring it. That was the technicality that saved your arse. The way it
was written was left open to interpetation and you jumped all over it. That
is what the discussion was about with the two attorneys. Fixed now.

  You already
> >> know
> >> this because we had the same discussion several years ago.  Posting the
> >> same statement now is tantamount to lying.

Didn't bring your issue up until you tried to defend it again. I simply
commented on your misleading statement that might allow readers to think
that out of state central stations need not be licensed in Florida.

> > My, my you are so defensive over this situation.  That usually implies,
even
> > though you didn't get prosecuted that you were caught.
>
> It only implies that I don't sit back and let you post more false
accusations
> (your stock in trade) without responding.

You will respond to anything and we all know that. Sometimes it is right and
sometimes not. There are people that like to simply hear themselves talk and
you, I gather are one of those people.

> > You did, however stop offering monitoring for compensation, didn't you?
>
> About 2 years later.

Anyone have a time line on that. I think it was more like immediately.

> It was what additional activities you were doing that you got
> > reported for.
>
> And the investigator concluded that the complaint was bogus.  Your idiot
pal's
> comments on this newsgroup and his contributions to another (now-deceased)
> poster's hate website helped the investigator to quickly determine that
the
> complaint was based on personal animosity -- not fact.

Total assumption. The complaintant that filed against you has never posted
to this NG nor any other about you.

> > You can deny it to this group all you want...
>
> And you can post the same lies all you want.  The fact is your buddy tried
to
> hurt my business and all he got for his troubles was the loss of respect
he so
> deserved by his colleagues.

I guess that is why he went on to become the Chairman of the Electrical
Contractors Licensing Board. Or didn't you know that?

> > The NG did ask you to prove your position by posting the complaint.
>
> The "NG" is not an entity that asks for anything.  There are a few
> mysoginistic jackasses besides yourself who have asked me to post various
> things but the report I received is on paper.  The synopsis is on the
state's
> website where it simply says (or said; I haven't looked at it in quie some
> time) that the matter was dismissed for lack of evidence of any wrong
doing.

Legal systems way of completing paperwork that they cannot or wish not to
persue.

> That kind of flies in the face of your lies but things like facts never
> stopped you before.

Facts were presented in the complaint or they would of not spent the dollars
to conduct the investigation to begin with. Trust me, they visited your
website before their visit.

> > the other hand he says he only knows the part that his online store is
> > exempt....
>
>  I said I only care about the part that
> matters to me.  I didn't say I didn't know the statute in its entirety.

Then why did you say out of state monitoring companies need not be licensed
when they clearly do.

> > I still think that blaming Mugford for filing the complaint
> > against him is as hilarious as him thinking Frank is a counter clerk.
>
> It was Mugford's pals doing his dirty work and the state investigator
quickly
> saw through it.  As to Frank Olson, he is one of the most prolific liars
ever
> to disgrace the newsgroup with his continual bullshit.  As a liar he even
> makes you and Mugford look like amateurs.

I guess your thought process says that if you throw enough mud up against
the wall, maybe some of it will stick to help substantiate your views. We
can now leave this one alone. You have successfully proved my point.