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

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.

26 USC 6104(d). Public Inspection of Certain Annual Returns and Applications
for Exemption.
(1) In general.--In the case of an organization described in subsection (c)
or (d) of section 501 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a)--
(A) a copy of--
(i) the annual return filed under section 6033 (relating to returns by
exempt organizations) by such organization, and
(ii) if the organization filed an application for recognition of exemption
under section 501, the exempt status application materials of such
organization, shall be made available by such organization for inspection
during regular business hours by any individual at the principal office of
such organization and, if such organization regularly maintains 1 or more
regional or district offices having 3 or more employees, at each such
regional or district office, and
(B) upon request of an individual made at such principal office or such a
regional or district office, a copy of such annual return and exempt status
application materials shall be provided to such individual without charge
other than a reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.
The request described in subparagraph (B) must be made in person or in
writing. IF SUCH REQUEST IS MADE IN PERSON, SUCH COPY SHALL BE PROVIDED
IMMEDIATELY and, if made in writing, shall be provided within 30 days.

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.

Dave K8MN

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?"

"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
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.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"D. Stussy" wrote:

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?

No, I don't think so.

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 doubt it. You did it because you're Don Quixote and you're on a
quest!

Dave K8MN

"a nobody" wrote in message link.net...
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.

It's not about me reading the code.

It's about Dieter not having the intesitnal fortitude to do it.

He's been whing about Bill for at least two years or more and
hasn't taken step-one to get anything done EXCEPT whine...Oh, and to
"Call Bill out" in THIS forum, which isn't covered in ANY code.

I'll make it easy for you; it's pasted below.

And it's still irrelevent.

All Dieter needs to do is walk into
their office and demand to inspect the documentation.

He hasn't got the cajones.

Now, back under your rock, Anonymous One.

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