Re: Installers in Kentucky beware of HB-41

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:

> You're lying again.  They dismissed the matter because the investigator
> determined that the comp[laint was false and without merit.  In fact,
> the people who did it were competitors who never met me nor did business
> with me.

I'm confused now.  First you accused Norm, then Bob...  Now it's
"competitors who never met me nor did business with me".   This is also
actually a "double negative".  The "nor" should really be an "or".


>
>> The disagreement happened in Tallahassee between two lady attorneys, one
>> want to prosecute the case and the other, did not do to technicalities.
>
> Bullshit!  You're lying through your tooth.

Prove him wrong, Bass.


>
>> The technicalities where corrected in the next legislative session.
>
> If that were true, they'd have been back at my door in an instant.  The
> matter was dropped because my business never was in violation of Florida
> law.

Nope.  You'd "corrected" your mistake by then.  In fact, when the
investigator was "nosing around" your digs, you were in the process of
divesting yourself of your monitoring commitments.


>
>> But, you don't need to take my word for it...
>
> I don't.  You're a liar.

Says the biggest liar in USENET.


>
>> Just read the definition, of "monitoring"...
>
> You can read the results online.  The matter was dismissed because there
> was no evidence to support your sleazy pal's claims.

Post the link, then.


>
> While we're on the subject of monitoring though, if I wanted to get back
> into it (I don't) now, I could still do so in compliance with Florida
> law.  That is because neither my clients nor the central monitoring
> facility were in Florida.  Florida cannot regulate that which occurs
> outside its borders when neither the monitoring facility nor the
> protected premises are inside our borders.  Twist the meaning of the
> legislators any way you like but it comes out the same.  The purpose of
> the statute is to protect Florida residents and businesses from people
> like you.  It is your kind of business they need to regulate and control
> due to the never ending abuses comitted by alarm companies like yours
> against the public.  Since I don't run an alarm company or a central
> station and I never had any monitored accounts in Florida, there is
> nothing for Florida to regulate.

You are, of course, wrong.  The statute is in place to protect people
from scumbags like *you*.  If you're selling monitoring and collecting
revenue for it *in Florida* you are subject to the statute.


>
> As to other rules and laws, capitalized or otherwise, your pals also
> tried to sick the city and county authorities on me.  That also failed
> since (1) I'm in the county and (2) I carefully checked with state and
> county offices to make sure I comply with all tax, licensing and other
> laws before moving to Florida.

But did you check with Mr. Nick Scaglione at Security Alarm Systems,
Inc. before you decided to open another online store with the same name???


>
>> prior to your investigation and then read the following revision of the
>> Statute, which would have been in June following that next legislative
>> session.
>
> I posted it.  There's still nothing there that would have regulated or
> limited my business.

You don't read well, we all know that.


>
>>> > 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.
>
> He told me on the phone that he uses his position to impress prospective
> clients.

Hearsay.  An unless you can prove what you've just said, you've also
libelled a senior member of the board.  Do you have legal representation??


> He also stated that he once (and presumably many more times)
> bullied a customer into using his services rather than risk "extra
> attention" from inspectors if they went with his less expensive
> competitor.  He's a real saint, eh?

Once again...  Hearsay, and unless you can prove your statement, you're
on the hook for libel, my "friend".  I hope he nails your sorry Bass!!



>> and you jumped all over it....
>
> No, you idiot.  I complied with the law.  I didn't offer monitoring in
> Florida, plain and simple.

But you sold and collected revenue from monitoring.  That makes you
subject to Florida law.



>
> Correction:  Out of state central stations monitoring buildings outside
> Florida don't need a Florida license.

Correction:  Their employs are not subject to criminal background
checks.  The CS still requires licensing under Florida law though.



>
>>>> 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.
>
> Back that up with facts or shut up.

You pulled your monitoring service within a few months of the
investigation.  I'm sure you didn't want to get "caught short".


>
>>> 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.
>
> Heh.  The jerk filled the newsgroup with personal attacks.  He also
> contributed to a hate website and put his own name on everything he
> wrote. Your buddy is one dumb cluck alright.

OK...  Now this is where I'm starting to get really confused.  Are we
back to accusing Norm, Bob, or "some competitor you never met"??  As for
anyone "contributing" anything to http://www.goofysplace.com, I think
Mike had more to do with all that than anyone.  He was mostly posting
messages he culled from Google archives.



>
> Yeah, sure.  Funny how there are numerous reports there that go into
> detail about the ones who did break the law -- companies like yours.

Really??  Prove it.


>
>>> 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.
>
> Allegations were presented.  The investigator found that they were
> false, recommended dismissal and that is what they did.

Prove it!!

Frank Olson
http://www.yoursecuritysource.com

"It only implies that I don't sit back and let you post more false
accusations without responding." -  Robert L. Bass