| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
September 13th 04, 05:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#42
September 13th 04, 12:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
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: 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. Personally, I think you're the guy who can't have his way, so you find ways to be annoying. 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. I asked YOU. 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? Any repeater. 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. Not moronic. You're whining, Dieter. You've been trying to beat up Bill Pasternak in this forum for two years without shredding ONE IOTA of VALID, DOCUMENTED PROOF. Nothing but your opinion and some guesses as to what YOU think is "fair" in the operational costs of A.R.N. If you can do better with less, then do it. As for moronic, I refer you back to your other post this same day about approaching the District Attorney because A.R.N., a charitable organization, is sponsoring a scholarship program for kids. THAT is "moronic". 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. Still no PROOF. Just a "suspicion" that you THINK they shouldn't be that high. 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. YOU are the one suggesting there is a problem, Dieter, not me. You've created this entire strawman in order to validate your on-going anti-BP crusade. I SAY that you are whining. It's not up to me to "justify" any argument. YOU have not provided a single shred of DOCUMENTED, VERIFYABLE PROOF, let alone "resonable suspicion" that there's ANYthing afoul with the way Bill operates "Amateur Radio Newsline". Until you've provided something OTHER than your "guesstimated" opinion on what you THINK should be happening, all you are doing is W H I N I N G ! ! ! ! And I am all for creating a grassroots effort to raise funds to give to Bill to retain a lawyer to stop your incessant public slurs. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#44
September 27th 04, 06:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... 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: 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. Personally, I think you're the guy who can't have his way, so you find ways to be annoying. 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. I asked YOU. You expect me to speak for an agency of the U.S. Government (when I don't work for that agency/bureau)? Don't you take the cake. 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? Any repeater. 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. Not moronic. You're whining, Dieter. You've been trying to beat up Bill Pasternak in this forum for two years without shredding ONE IOTA of VALID, DOCUMENTED PROOF. Proof: He posts his drivel here (in FULL) weekly yet does not participate in this newsgroup whatsoever. Doesn't that remind you of someone. It certainly does for me: A SPAMMER. I don't have to prove it; he proves it for us every week by his actions. Nothing but your opinion and some guesses as to what YOU think is "fair" in the operational costs of A.R.N. If you can do better with less, then do it. All his "competitors" do - about 90% less. As for moronic, I refer you back to your other post this same day about approaching the District Attorney because A.R.N., a charitable organization, is sponsoring a scholarship program for kids. THAT is "moronic". If that's what you think, you completely missed the point (again). To repeatedly misclassify an expense as something else is accounting fraud, plain and simple. It doesn't matter that one is "hiding" one worthy cause in another; it is wrong regardless. 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. Still no PROOF. Just a "suspicion" that you THINK they shouldn't be that high. 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. YOU are the one suggesting there is a problem, Dieter, not me. You've created this entire strawman in order to validate your on-going anti-BP crusade. Just because I am smart enough to discover that there is a descrepency and you're not doesn't mean that I am incorrect. I never said affirmatively that I was correct - I'll grant you that. I only said that there appears to be an unexplained problem, and I, as a member of the public, have a right (and perhaps even a responsibility) to seek the truth when a tax-advantaged charity is involved. I SAY that you are whining. It's not up to me to "justify" any argument. YOU have not provided a single shred of DOCUMENTED, VERIFYABLE PROOF, let alone "resonable suspicion" that there's ANYthing afoul with the way Bill operates "Amateur Radio Newsline". Yes, there is. AR Newsline's own, recent statement makes that clear. They have classified ALL their expenses as "news gathering" when the scholarship portion isn't. It doesn't cost them "$1k/month to bring [us] the news." It may, when averaged, cost $1k/month for ALL their activities, but that's not what they have historically said. Their statement is wrong, they KNOW it, and they make it for the purpose of soliciting further contributions, thus demonstrating INTENT. Until you've provided something OTHER than your "guesstimated" opinion on what you THINK should be happening, all you are doing is W H I N I N G ! ! ! ! And I am all for creating a grassroots effort to raise funds to give to Bill to retain a lawyer to stop your incessant public slurs. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#45
September 27th 04, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy" Date: 9/27/2004 12:45 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org... 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: 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. Personally, I think you're the guy who can't have his way, so you find ways to be annoying. 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. I asked YOU. You expect me to speak for an agency of the U.S. Government (when I don't work for that agency/bureau)? Don't you take the cake. Hey, it's better than the egg you'll be wearing if you do try to follow through on these assinine allegations of yours. You've been trying to beat up Bill Pasternak in this forum for two years without shredding ONE IOTA of VALID, DOCUMENTED PROOF. Proof: He posts his drivel here (in FULL) weekly yet does not participate in this newsgroup whatsoever. Doesn't that remind you of someone. It certainly does for me: A SPAMMER. I don't have to prove it; he proves it for us every week by his actions. NOT "proof". ARN's posts provide a realtively timely and subject-focused insight as to activities going on in the Amateur Radio community. No one said that anything posted here had to be a two-way medium. ARN's posts contain material that is realtive to Amateur Radio on several levels, INCLUDING Amateur Radio policy. All his posts have to do is mention just one passage about any regulatory or legal proceeding ABOUT Amateur Radio, and his "release" is germane to the forum. Nothing but your opinion and some guesses as to what YOU think is "fair" in the operational costs of A.R.N. If you can do better with less, then do it. All his "competitors" do - about 90% less. OK...so YOU go ahead and get the books from ALL the other "competitors", then post a side-by-side comparison as to content, timeliness, accessibility and content and PROVE me wrong. YOU are claiming these other resources do it for less...Prove it. Show us the books...Not just "Dieter Stussy says so..." As for moronic, I refer you back to your other post this same day about approaching the District Attorney because A.R.N., a charitable organization, is sponsoring a scholarship program for kids. THAT is "moronic". If that's what you think, you completely missed the point (again). To repeatedly misclassify an expense as something else is accounting fraud, plain and simple. It doesn't matter that one is "hiding" one worthy cause in another; it is wrong regardless. I've missed nothing. YOU have made a claim of fraud. Personally, I'm getting tired of hearing it, especially since you've NOT provided ONE IOTA of PROOF. PROOF is Bill's books, audited by a reputable CPA or court officer, and then published for public review. PROOF is NOT Dieter Stussy saying it's so. YOU are the one suggesting there is a problem, Dieter, not me. You've created this entire strawman in order to validate your on-going anti-BP crusade. Just because I am smart enough to discover that there is a descrepency and you're not doesn't mean that I am incorrect. I never said affirmatively that I was correct - I'll grant you that. You'd have to. So far you've done nothing but whine and accuse. And so far you've "discovered" NOTHING. You have a very biased opinion as to why you THINK there's a problem, and that's only due to your dislike for one of the persons who runs the program you are alledging to be commiting fraud. I only said that there appears to be an unexplained problem, and I, as a member of the public, have a right (and perhaps even a responsibility) to seek the truth when a tax-advantaged charity is involved. And I say he's been providing this service for years and there's not been the slightest bit of evidence of impropriety by Bill Pasternak, ARN or anyone involved with it. I SAY that you are whining. It's not up to me to "justify" any argument. YOU have not provided a single shred of DOCUMENTED, VERIFYABLE PROOF, let alone "resonable suspicion" that there's ANYthing afoul with the way Bill operates "Amateur Radio Newsline". Yes, there is. AR Newsline's own, recent statement makes that clear. They have classified ALL their expenses as "news gathering" when the scholarship portion isn't. It doesn't cost them "$1k/month to bring [us] the news." It may, when averaged, cost $1k/month for ALL their activities, but that's not what they have historically said. Their statement is wrong, they KNOW it, and they make it for the purpose of soliciting further contributions, thus demonstrating INTENT. Still nothing there, Dieter. The IRS ain't complaining. The FCC ain't complaining. And in better than 20 years of listening to ARN, YOU are the ONLY person I have EVER heard complain about it. Until you've provided something OTHER than your "guesstimated" opinion on what you THINK should be happening, all you are doing is W H I N I N G ! ! ! ! And I am all for creating a grassroots effort to raise funds to give to Bill to retain a lawyer to stop your incessant public slurs. Incase you missed that last line, Dieter, allow me to emphasize it for you (Note: I am not "yelling"...the following is for emphasis only) "AND I AM ALL FOR CREATING A GRASSROOTS EFFORT TO RASIE FUNDS TO GIVE TO BILL TO RETAIN A LAWYER TO STOP YOUR INCESSANT PUBLIC SLURS" |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1398 Â May 28, 2004 | General | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1353 – July 18, 2003 | General | |||
Linear Mode
