On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/30/2004 6:05 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:
a nobody wrote:

26 USC 6104(d) says otherwise. Read it.
You still have no right to just demand that he just give his
books to
you.

You obviously didn't follow Dieter's suggestion to read the Code.
I'll make
it easy for you; it's pasted below. All Dieter needs to do is walk
into
their office and demand to inspect the documentation. And to make it
really
easy for you, I capitalized the relevant phrase. When it comes to tax
law,
Dieter knows what he's talking about.

Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. He hasn't told us of his knowledge of
where Bill Pasternak's operation falls under all of those "ifs" and
"exceptions". You'd think if the issue is important to him, he'd act.
He hasn't and my belief is that he won't.

His frequent posts on the matter read like the rantings of a guy
wearing
an aluminum foil cap.

You don't think that I shall?

Well, tell me then why I have the following information (and now make
public
here - from the electronic version of IRS Publication 78):

AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE INC
28197 ROBIN AVE
SAUGUS, CA 91350
EIN: 95-4867766

Did I merely look that up for "my health?"

I bet you've looked up more than one skirt in your life too,
Dieter, but it doesn't make you a gynecologist, either.

We'll see what you "do" with it.

First of all, I seriously doubt you "do" anything.

And even if you do, I seriously doubt that anything will ever
come of it.

We'll see.

Well, I will say this:

No one here was able to provide anything that directly refuted my conclusion.

Sure we have.

You have said that Bill's not using the funds appropriately.

I (and others) have pointed out that Bill's "service" routinely and
reliably puts it's reports out. Ergo he's obvioulsy spending the money on the
work he claimed he wanted the funds for.

The "burden of proof" for anything else is on YOUR shoulders. You're
making these fanciful assertions, so it's up to YOU to prove it.

The last time I did this (or anything like it) was to a local repeater
coordinating body which was acting "less than responsibly" (i.e. no meeting,
no
acknowledgements for RFC's nor any OTHER responses to coordination requests,
etc.).

Were they soliciting funds AS a charitable organization? Did they alledge
to have 503(c) status?

At the time, yes, they were soliciting funds and stated that they were
non-profit, but they had not stated whether or not they were a qualified
charity for which such solicitations would be deductible. However, even if
they weren't such, just the fact that they claimed non-profit status would have
been enough for them to have an IRS Form 1024 (instead of form 1023) filing and
the IRS computer would then show WHICH paragraph of IRC 501(c) their exempt
purpose fell under (only if it were paragraph (3) would donations be deductible
as charity by the donor).

And who is Dieter Stussy to decide what's "responsible" in the actions of
any entity?

An interested member of the public - that's all I have to be.

They WEREN'T listed in the IRS's public charity database, and I
verified that when I filed an IRS form 4506-A to get a copy of their last
990-series return. That request came back "entity does not exist" (IRS
response dated April 11, 1996). [That also means that they NEVER filed for
non-profit status ever.] I then challenged their coordinator status before
the
NFCC (during its first year of existence: FY 96/97). I could have equally
complained to the IRS also at that point, but decided to defer that for the
time an appeal of the NFCC decision regarding my complaint to the FCC would
be
appropriate; the government doesn't like to get involved except as a last
resort.

Why would they?

Ask them.

Guess what? That frequency/repeater coordinator group now has [annually]
held
general meetings on a regular schedule since 1997, has cleaned up its act by
issuing acknowledgement postcards to every piece of mail sent to its P.O. Box
(not just RFC's), and timely responds to RFC's and other issues, ...; i.e. it
is now acting "responsibly." I will grant you that my actions on their
situation may not have been 100% responsible for this as there was a period
where a competing coordinating group was set up (the "440 FCA" of San Dimas,
CA), but my actions were probably at least 33% contributing. [BTW, the group
in question was SCRRBA - not TASMA, which also had a competing coordinating
group in the 1990's for about 2 years.]

And I am sure they just jump to the microphone any time you sign on the
repeater.

Which repeater is that?

Be careful of what you wish for (or push others into doing) - you might get
it.

Consider yourself pushed, Dieter. I still say you're barking up the wrong
tree.

Do you really think that I would dare publicly make such an accusation if I
lacked a reasonable basis for doing so?

Considering THIS forum, absolutely!

So far your "reasonable basis" has been "I hate Bill Paternak" and nothing
else. Not a single shred of verifyable, attestable fact.

Another moronic comment.

My reasonable basis has been that his expenses, as AR Newsline and he describe
them, appear excessive as compared against the activity that generates them.

All you would rather do is fight
with
me over my conclusion WITHOUT introducing a reasonable, alternative
explanation. [No one else has suggested one either.]

I am "fighting" with your assinine whinigns about Newsline publishing it's
releases in a forum ABOUT Amateur Radio...You're the one who keeps whining
about ARN's alleged abuses of it's solicitations.

I can SEE and HEAR the results of thier solicitations, Dieter.

All AR Newsline has to
do
is to voluntarily disclose, and if they do so and have a reasonable
explanation
which is publicly acceptable, the issue goes away. However, if my conclusion
were correct (it hasn't been proven so - yet), they can't disclose, even if I
choose to compel disclosure under the federal statute previously cited.

I still say you're going to do nothing but create hate and discontent for
no other reason but to salve your wonded ego over some absolutely assinine
local issue that peripherially involved Bill Paternak.

But you go right ahead. If you're right, I'll most gladly render a
sincere "I stand corrected". However when it goes the way I think it will,
I would expect YOU to do the same.

Try offering an argument that explains the problem. Simply saying that I am
wrong without such will get you nowhere.