On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:04:46 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

I will make this final post on the topic:

He sees fit (whether properly or not) to post his weekly script here. Why
won't he come out and defend himself by disclosing where the finances of ARN
really go? He certainly knows that he has been challenged on this issue; all
he has to do is read the posts. We know that he does as the Internet
newsgroups may lead him (and his competitors) to stories sometimes before other
sources do.

My answer: Because he knows that I am correct and he doesn't want to expose
his operation by commenting or responding.

My opinion is not alone. I have asked some of the other operators in my area,
including one who runs a radio school (not Gordon West), and they know of no
information that would refute my conclusion. Granted that BP may not have the
burden of proof, but I have made a prima-facie case based on what information
is in the public knowledge.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

Stacey, AA7YA

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, S. Hanrahan wrote:
...
You don't have a leg to stand on.

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, hotmail user wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees.

But you forget: He can't do that. That would require disclosure of his
expenditures (for which he has already refused - because that would disclose
his fraud as well), thus I would prevail.

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/23/2004 2:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, hotmail user wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees.

But you forget: He can't do that. That would require disclosure of his
expenditures (for which he has already refused - because that would disclose
his fraud as well), thus I would prevail.

Bill has, as of this date, "refused" nothing.

YOU have not filed a formal complaint that would require that he disclose
his finances.

He is not required to just plop open his books because someone with an
attitude says "boo" in an unmoderated newsgroup.

Unless you take the initiative to live up to your rhetoric you will not
prevail at anything.

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/23/2004 2:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, hotmail user wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees.

But you forget: He can't do that. That would require disclosure of his
expenditures (for which he has already refused - because that would disclose
his fraud as well), thus I would prevail.

Bill has, as of this date, "refused" nothing.

YOU have not filed a formal complaint that would require that he disclose
his finances.

He is not required to just plop open his books because someone with an
attitude says "boo" in an unmoderated newsgroup.

Unless you take the initiative to live up to your rhetoric you will not
prevail at anything.

26 USC 6104(d) says otherwise. Read it.

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/29/2004 5:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/23/2004 2:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, hotmail user wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees.

But you forget: He can't do that. That would require disclosure of his
expenditures (for which he has already refused - because that would
disclose
his fraud as well), thus I would prevail.

Bill has, as of this date, "refused" nothing.

YOU have not filed a formal complaint that would require that he
disclose
his finances.

He is not required to just plop open his books because someone with an
attitude says "boo" in an unmoderated newsgroup.

Unless you take the initiative to live up to your rhetoric you will
not
prevail at anything.

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 have made no effort to get him to do so via legally provided-for
channels. I know this because I asked him.

You have no evidence other than some ill defined suspicion. Your
obviously tainted personal bias doesn't even remotely approach enough
"resonable doubt" as to get law enforcement to do anything on thier own
volition.

You're barking at the moon...Again.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"D. Stussy" wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/23/2004 2:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, hotmail user wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees.

But you forget: He can't do that. That would require disclosure of his
expenditures (for which he has already refused - because that would disclose
his fraud as well), thus I would prevail.

Bill has, as of this date, "refused" nothing.

YOU have not filed a formal complaint that would require that he disclose
his finances.

He is not required to just plop open his books because someone with an
attitude says "boo" in an unmoderated newsgroup.

Unless you take the initiative to live up to your rhetoric you will not
prevail at anything.

26 USC 6104(d) says otherwise. Read it.

Okay, I read it. There are certainly a lot of "ifs" and "exceptions".
If you believe it applies, do something about it. Your continuing
carping
on the issue leads me to believe that it is only you with a problem
regarding Bill Pasternak.

If you don't or won't act, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Dave K8MN