Robert said:
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".
Bullshit! You're lying through your tooth.
Prove him wrong, Bass.
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.
Says the biggest liar in USENET.
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???
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 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!!
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.
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".
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.
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
