"D. Stussy" ) writes:

1) I have not made it any secret what he has done to one of my associates by
misreporting the story he was involved in. 2) If newsline is supposed to be a
"non-profit" operation then why is BP practically LIVING off of the donations?
There are laws that govern what "reasonable compensation" is for a non-profit,
and he's exceeding them, as I have previously demonstrated.

Where in the world do you get that weird concept?

Non-profit means there can be no profit, to pass on to shareholders (or
whatever).

You can have a non-profit organization that makes money. But, they have
to put the profit back into organization.

And any but really small non-profit organizations, such as the local ham
club, have staff. What they get paid may depend on the financial soundness
of the organization, but there is nothing to limit what they get paid simply
because it's a non-profit organization. I'm sure many non-profits would argue
that by paying a good salaray to key people, they are able to operate well.

Michael VE2BVW

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/12/2004 1:38 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...

I don't see you "protesting" any of the "ENLARGE YOUR !@#$%" spam, or
the
"MAKE MONEY FAST" spam, nor do I see you protesting any of the "SEE MY TEEN
WIFE !@#$%^" spam.

Like ANYONE can do anything about the spam problem nowadays?....

Seem's to me AOL and Yahoo are. Some pretty hefty lawsuits are in the
mill.

NONE of that is even REMOTELY related to Amateur Radio, yet where's
Dieter's outrageous indignation about THOSE "guidelines/charter
violation(s)"...?!?!

SO? That just means that I chose to put my resources where I CAN accomplish
an
end to the violation....

No, it doesn't.

It means that your ulterior motives are glaring.

This is not about "spam".

It's about Dieter Stussy-vs-Bill Pasternak. Period.

I reiterate my previous assertion: It's directly pertinent TO Amateur
Radio, BY a licensed Radio Amateur IN an Amateur Radio forum. Much of what
is
in Bill's "news releases" IS pertinent to Amateur Radio policy
discussions....And certainly MORE pertinent than most of the other stuff
that
transpires here.

All I can say is that what ever Bill did/said that got you in such a
wedgie must have hit pretty close to home! You're obviously still stinging
from it!

1) I have not made it any secret what he has done to one of my associates by
misreporting the story he was involved in. 2) If newsline is supposed to be
a
"non-profit" operation then why is BP practically LIVING off of the
donations?
There are laws that govern what "reasonable compensation" is for a
non-profit,
and he's exceeding them, as I have previously demonstrated.

You've only demonstrated that you're PO'ed at Bill Pasternak.

....And if you knew how he, at best, twisted the truth, or at worst, outright
lied, then you wouldn't trust him either. The specific case I cite is of
historical record in this group. I was not personally involved, but do know
the parties who were - and the truth of their stories.

If you want to make your point, why don't you either document your
concerns to the FCC or the IRS, since they are the two most likely agencies to
have an official opinion on the matter...

Lastly, the federal tax codes allow for a percentage of "charitable
donations" to be used for administrative (eg: salaries) purposes. I've met
Bill Pasternak and I dare say he's sharp enough to have made sure that his
finances are TDC with the law.

Unless you can prove differently...?!?!? (My bet's on "PO'd indignation"
more than valid complaint)

You don't have to tell me what the IRS allows - remember that I used to BE a
"revenuer." The only way for "newsline" to have expenses exceeding $1k/month,
after comparing their operations to that of others like "RAIN" and "TWIAR" is
if BP is paying himself a salary that is at least 50% of that amount - much
more than what he is representing to the public. I haven't gotten around to
pulling his form 990 yet (via a request on form 4506-A), but we already know
what we're going to find there....

You will note that it's no secret that I have done a form 990 search on one of
the local amateur repeater frequency coordination organizations a few years
ago, and upon finding no filings (yet a collection of "dues" from members),
asked the NFCC to decertify them. This was in addition to their failure to
even acknowledge coordination applications filed with them or act on any (any
action - acceptance, denial, or even receipt). That particular group has since
become a bit "more responsible" to the public since then....

Be careful about what you suggest - you may get it.

Additionally, there is no legitimate purpose for him to post his entire
transcript weekly. Those who want to read it will go to his website where it
exists and don't need it here. To post it here (instead of merely posting a
link to it when it is revised each week) is SPAM - and YOU KNOW IT.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Michael Black wrote:
"D. Stussy" ) writes:

1) I have not made it any secret what he has done to one of my associates by
misreporting the story he was involved in. 2) If newsline is supposed to be a
"non-profit" operation then why is BP practically LIVING off of the donations?
There are laws that govern what "reasonable compensation" is for a non-profit,
and he's exceeding them, as I have previously demonstrated.

Where in the world do you get that weird concept?

From his public statement that it costs newsline $1k/month to do its business,
when his nearest "competitors," RAIN and TWIAR do it for $100.00/month. The
only way that it can cost newsline 10x as much is if he is compensating people
for the activity (which in itself is permitted), but it is the extent of the
compensation that must be occuring that is of concern.... The "ARRL news" is
not comparable because it's part of a larger organization that does other
things and we don't have the requisite information to separate just the
news-gathering costs from the other activities.

Non-profit means there can be no profit, to pass on to shareholders (or
whatever).

You can have a non-profit organization that makes money. But, they have
to put the profit back into organization.

....But not into the shareholders' or employees' pockets beyond "reasonable"
compensation. The issue is that in this case, it appears that the compensation
exceeds that which is reasonable after comparison to that of his closest
competitors....

And any but really small non-profit organizations, such as the local ham
club, have staff. What they get paid may depend on the financial soundness
of the organization, but there is nothing to limit what they get paid simply
because it's a non-profit organization. I'm sure many non-profits would argue
that by paying a good salaray to key people, they are able to operate well.

Ah, but when more than 50% of the gross receipts go to salary, then what it
really becomes is a conduit to merely compensate.... Let's look at the
information that has been made public about this type of activity:

The competitors report that it costs them $100/month in phone calls and other
administrative functions, so lets give ARN that. They do not compensate their
news gatherers.

In addition to that expense, ARN maintains and distributes its bulletin by
phone line (an expense that TWIAR and RAIN don't have). Various phone numbers
across the country are sponsored by OTHER GROUPS, but the Santa Clarita main
number ARN pays for itself. Between Verizon (formerly GTE) and SBC (formerly
Pacific Bell), Verizon has the higher rates. [I don't know which telco
actually serves the number, but even if we assume the more costly one, at
worse, we're overestimating the cost but not by much.] A flat-rate area phone
number costs about $29/month after taxes, but lets assume that his call to
update that isn't local but intra-lata long distance, so let's call that
expense $50/month.

We've now accounted for $150/month of expenses, but ARN reports that it costs
$1k/month, so where is this other $850/month actually going? There may be some
additional overhead for the web site and domain name, but there is no way that
one will find enough of those or any other expenses sufficient to explain the
cost of $1k/month OTHER THAN salary that BP puts into his own pocket. I
conclude that about and no less than 75% of every donation ends up in his
pocket - and that is a conservative estimate.

If this is wrong, then why, when I challenged him on this, he would NOT
disclose where or how the donated funds are being allocated? My assertion is
simple: He doesn't want to tell the public that this is really a scheme.
That's the ONLY reason why any [IRC 501(c)(3), since he claims deductibility]
non-profit would not provide a breakout of how their donations are applied.

Note: If ARN is a non-profit, but not under subsection 501(c)(3), then
donations to it are NOT tax deductible (nor is a form 990 necessarily required
by them - but a different form may be), but then to state to the public that
the donations are deductible would be an act of fraud that is prosecutable.

"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Michael Black wrote:
"D. Stussy" ) writes:

1) I have not made it any secret what he has done to one of my associates by
misreporting the story he was involved in. 2) If newsline is supposed to be a
"non-profit" operation then why is BP practically LIVING off of the donations?
There are laws that govern what "reasonable compensation" is for a non-profit,
and he's exceeding them, as I have previously demonstrated.

Where in the world do you get that weird concept?

From his public statement that it costs newsline $1k/month to do its business,
when his nearest "competitors," RAIN and TWIAR do it for $100.00/month. The
only way that it can cost newsline 10x as much is if he is compensating people
for the activity (which in itself is permitted), but it is the extent of the
compensation that must be occuring that is of concern....

So...Let me get this straight...You're PO'ed because BP is
legally compensating people "more" for thier inputs than other sources
do thiers...?!?!

Dieter, YOU are in the WRONG country, My friend!

The "ARRL news" is
not comparable because it's part of a larger organization that does other
things and we don't have the requisite information to separate just the
news-gathering costs from the other activities.

That's an excuse, Dieter. They certainly CAN seperate those
expenses.

Non-profit means there can be no profit, to pass on to shareholders (or
whatever).

You can have a non-profit organization that makes money. But, they have
to put the profit back into organization.

...But not into the shareholders' or employees' pockets beyond "reasonable"
compensation. The issue is that in this case, it appears that the compensation
exceeds that which is reasonable after comparison to that of his closest
competitors....

So...MY question is who in the heck is Dieter Stussy to determine
what is fair and reasonable compensation for doing a legal
thing...?!?!

And any but really small non-profit organizations, such as the local ham
club, have staff. What they get paid may depend on the financial soundness
of the organization, but there is nothing to limit what they get paid simply
because it's a non-profit organization. I'm sure many non-profits would argue
that by paying a good salaray to key people, they are able to operate well.

Ah, but when more than 50% of the gross receipts go to salary, then what it
really becomes is a conduit to merely compensate.... Let's look at the
information that has been made public about this type of activity:

The competitors report that it costs them $100/month in phone calls and other
administrative functions, so lets give ARN that. They do not compensate their
news gatherers.

But so far...even by your own admission, what Bill's doing is
legal and your only "beef" is that he's not doing it for free.

In addition to that expense, ARN maintains and distributes its bulletin by
phone line (an expense that TWIAR and RAIN don't have). Various phone numbers
across the country are sponsored by OTHER GROUPS, but the Santa Clarita main
number ARN pays for itself. Between Verizon (formerly GTE) and SBC (formerly
Pacific Bell), Verizon has the higher rates. [I don't know which telco
actually serves the number, but even if we assume the more costly one, at
worse, we're overestimating the cost but not by much.] A flat-rate area phone
number costs about $29/month after taxes, but lets assume that his call to
update that isn't local but intra-lata long distance, so let's call that
expense $50/month.

A "flat rate" number at $29 might be for residential service, but
certainly not for a business, even a charitable one.

We've now accounted for $150/month of expenses, but ARN reports that it costs
$1k/month, so where is this other $850/month actually going? There may be some
additional overhead for the web site and domain name, but there is no way that
one will find enough of those or any other expenses sufficient to explain the
cost of $1k/month OTHER THAN salary that BP puts into his own pocket. I
conclude that about and no less than 75% of every donation ends up in his
pocket - and that is a conservative estimate.

If this is wrong, then why, when I challenged him on this, he would NOT
disclose where or how the donated funds are being allocated? My assertion is
simple: He doesn't want to tell the public that this is really a scheme.

Is it?

WHAT has Bill offered in exchange for the funds that he HASN'T
provided?

It's not a "get rich quick" scheme, and he's certainly not
offering snake oil or other homeopathic remedies.

He HAS offered to run this service as long as he can do so and
keep himself fed and housed. And until I see him living on a beach in
Malibu or driving a Jag, you've not convinced me for one that he's
bilking ANYone out of ANYthing.

And at todays valuation, just exactly what do you think he's doing
with that money?

That's the ONLY reason why any [IRC 501(c)(3), since he claims deductibility]
non-profit would not provide a breakout of how their donations are applied.

Note: If ARN is a non-profit, but not under subsection 501(c)(3), then
donations to it are NOT tax deductible (nor is a form 990 necessarily required
by them - but a different form may be), but then to state to the public that
the donations are deductible would be an act of fraud that is prosecutable.

Then stop your incessant whining and refer it to the Attorney
General's office.

If you're not sufficiently confident that you can make a case to
him that BP is doing something illegal, then chances are he's NOT
doing anything illegal.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/17/2004 8:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...

You've only demonstrated that you're PO'ed at Bill Pasternak.

...And if you knew how he, at best, twisted the truth, or at worst, outright
lied, then you wouldn't trust him either. The specific case I cite is of
historical record in this group. I was not personally involved, but do know
the parties who were - and the truth of their stories.

So far all I have seen is your side of this, and not much else. I do know
Bill...we're not exactly "old drinking buddies", but neither do I have any
reason to doubt HIS sincerity or honesty.

If you want to make your point, why don't you either document your
concerns to the FCC or the IRS, since they are the two most likely agencies
to
have an official opinion on the matter...

Lastly, the federal tax codes allow for a percentage of "charitable
donations" to be used for administrative (eg: salaries) purposes. I've met
Bill Pasternak and I dare say he's sharp enough to have made sure that his
finances are TDC with the law.

Unless you can prove differently...?!?!? (My bet's on "PO'd
indignation"
more than valid complaint)

You don't have to tell me what the IRS allows - remember that I used to BE a
"revenuer." The only way for "newsline" to have expenses exceeding
$1k/month,
after comparing their operations to that of others like "RAIN" and "TWIAR" is
if BP is paying himself a salary that is at least 50% of that amount - much
more than what he is representing to the public. I haven't gotten around to
pulling his form 990 yet (via a request on form 4506-A), but we already know
what we're going to find there....

We "KNOW"....?!?!

No, "we" don't.

You've been whining about his posts here for over two years now Dieter and
I haven't seen a single thing that indicates that you've done anything BUT
whine about it.

Nor do I think it would be a wise idea on your part.

You will note that it's no secret that I have done a form 990 search on one
of
the local amateur repeater frequency coordination organizations a few years
ago, and upon finding no filings (yet a collection of "dues" from members),
asked the NFCC to decertify them. This was in addition to their failure to
even acknowledge coordination applications filed with them or act on any (any
action - acceptance, denial, or even receipt). That particular group has
since
become a bit "more responsible" to the public since then....

Be careful about what you suggest - you may get it.

Then all you will have done is proven that you were right and I was
wrong...the world will go on. I would say "Gee, Dieter, you were right". I
might even send you a gift certificate for dinner on me...

So far all I see is your personal dislike for Bill Pasternak.

However if he WERE investigated by the IRS, these archives could be used
to validate a personal vendetta by you against him...Since you seem to "know it
all" when it comes to IRS policies and procedures, I assume you ALSO know what
recourse Bill could have should it be proven that you tried to use the IRS as a
source of intimidation against him, don't you...?!?!

Additionally, there is no legitimate purpose for him to post his entire
transcript weekly. Those who want to read it will go to his website where it
exists and don't need it here. To post it here (instead of merely posting a
link to it when it is revised each week) is SPAM - and YOU KNOW IT.

It is NOT spam, Dieter.

The content IS relevent to Amateur Radio practice AND policies, therefore
is absolutely pertinent to this forum.

If you don't want to read it, skip over it. When I open my newsreader I
can see the thread title, and if it's obviously spam (the aforementioned "SEE
MY TEEN WIFE..." kinda crap), has anything to do with N0VFP, AB8MQ or
"Twistedhed", I simply mark ir "READ" and that's that.

Good luck making your case. If I were asked to render an opinion on the
matter to a federal investigator, you know how I'd vote.

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Michael Black wrote:
"D. Stussy" ) writes:

1) I have not made it any secret what he has done to one of my associates by
misreporting the story he was involved in. 2) If newsline is supposed to be a
"non-profit" operation then why is BP practically LIVING off of the donations?
There are laws that govern what "reasonable compensation" is for a non-profit,
and he's exceeding them, as I have previously demonstrated.

Where in the world do you get that weird concept?

From his public statement that it costs newsline $1k/month to do its business,
when his nearest "competitors," RAIN and TWIAR do it for $100.00/month. The
only way that it can cost newsline 10x as much is if he is compensating people
for the activity (which in itself is permitted), but it is the extent of the
compensation that must be occuring that is of concern....

So...Let me get this straight...You're PO'ed because BP is
legally compensating people "more" for thier inputs than other sources
do thiers...?!?!

Dieter, YOU are in the WRONG country, My friend!

The FACT that he is compensating himself "some amount" isn't the problem. It's
the AMOUNT of compensation and the fact that he REFUSES to disclose that to the
public that is the problem.

The "ARRL news" is
not comparable because it's part of a larger organization that does other
things and we don't have the requisite information to separate just the
news-gathering costs from the other activities.

That's an excuse, Dieter. They certainly CAN seperate those
expenses.

I am certain that they can, but I haven't seen those separated out in a public
statement, so I can't use them to compare.

Non-profit means there can be no profit, to pass on to shareholders (or
whatever).

You can have a non-profit organization that makes money. But, they have
to put the profit back into organization.

...But not into the shareholders' or employees' pockets beyond "reasonable"
compensation. The issue is that in this case, it appears that the compensation
exceeds that which is reasonable after comparison to that of his closest
competitors....

So...MY question is who in the heck is Dieter Stussy to determine
what is fair and reasonable compensation for doing a legal
thing...?!?!

A person who is a member of the PUBLIC who is questioning and HAS THE RIGHT TO
QUESTION a charity into its reasonableness, else ask the IRS to revoke its
non-profit status.

And any but really small non-profit organizations, such as the local ham
club, have staff. What they get paid may depend on the financial soundness
of the organization, but there is nothing to limit what they get paid simply
because it's a non-profit organization. I'm sure many non-profits would argue
that by paying a good salaray to key people, they are able to operate well.

Ah, but when more than 50% of the gross receipts go to salary, then what it
really becomes is a conduit to merely compensate.... Let's look at the
information that has been made public about this type of activity:

The competitors report that it costs them $100/month in phone calls and other
administrative functions, so lets give ARN that. They do not compensate their
news gatherers.

But so far...even by your own admission, what Bill's doing is
legal and your only "beef" is that he's not doing it for free.

I do not agree that what he is doing is legal. He has not disclosed when asked
and non-profits MUST disclose.

In addition to that expense, ARN maintains and distributes its bulletin by
phone line (an expense that TWIAR and RAIN don't have). Various phone numbers
across the country are sponsored by OTHER GROUPS, but the Santa Clarita main
number ARN pays for itself. Between Verizon (formerly GTE) and SBC (formerly
Pacific Bell), Verizon has the higher rates. [I don't know which telco
actually serves the number, but even if we assume the more costly one, at
worse, we're overestimating the cost but not by much.] A flat-rate area phone
number costs about $29/month after taxes, but lets assume that his call to
update that isn't local but intra-lata long distance, so let's call that
expense $50/month.

A "flat rate" number at $29 might be for residential service, but
certainly not for a business, even a charitable one.

The amount I used is also about the same for business use customers per line.
Look it up in the phone book. The difference is less than $2/month.

We've now accounted for $150/month of expenses, but ARN reports that it costs
$1k/month, so where is this other $850/month actually going? There may be some
additional overhead for the web site and domain name, but there is no way that
one will find enough of those or any other expenses sufficient to explain the
cost of $1k/month OTHER THAN salary that BP puts into his own pocket. I
conclude that about and no less than 75% of every donation ends up in his
pocket - and that is a conservative estimate.

If this is wrong, then why, when I challenged him on this, he would NOT
disclose where or how the donated funds are being allocated? My assertion is
simple: He doesn't want to tell the public that this is really a scheme.

Is it?

WHAT has Bill offered in exchange for the funds that he HASN'T
provided?

It's not a "get rich quick" scheme, and he's certainly not
offering snake oil or other homeopathic remedies.

He HAS offered to run this service as long as he can do so and
keep himself fed and housed. And until I see him living on a beach in
Malibu or driving a Jag, you've not convinced me for one that he's
bilking ANYone out of ANYthing.

And at todays valuation, just exactly what do you think he's doing
with that money?

That's the ONLY reason why any [IRC 501(c)(3), since he claims deductibility]
non-profit would not provide a breakout of how their donations are applied.

Note: If ARN is a non-profit, but not under subsection 501(c)(3), then
donations to it are NOT tax deductible (nor is a form 990 necessarily required
by them - but a different form may be), but then to state to the public that
the donations are deductible would be an act of fraud that is prosecutable.

Then stop your incessant whining and refer it to the Attorney
General's office.

You asked me to explain my position. My "whining" is at your request.
....Also, who's to say that I haven't referred him to the state's AG or to the
IRS (to challenge his non-profit status)?

This all started by my comments about his posts being SPAM on this group. You
asked why. I'd say that you got more than what you asked for.

If you're not sufficiently confident that you can make a case to
him that BP is doing something illegal, then chances are he's NOT
doing anything illegal.

Or he is hiding his fraud on the public extremely well. Remember that the
"best" conspiricy is the one that no one knows about.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/17/2004 8:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...

You've only demonstrated that you're PO'ed at Bill Pasternak.

...And if you knew how he, at best, twisted the truth, or at worst, outright
lied, then you wouldn't trust him either. The specific case I cite is of
historical record in this group. I was not personally involved, but do know
the parties who were - and the truth of their stories.

So far all I have seen is your side of this, and not much else. I do know
Bill...we're not exactly "old drinking buddies", but neither do I have any
reason to doubt HIS sincerity or honesty.

Here's why I doubt his honesty: Some years ago, he reported on a conflict
between a Los Angeles repeater that was put up on the frequency pair of 145.460
(output) and a Mexican repeater on the same pair. I witnessed him personally
talk to some Mexicans about this at a local amateur radio convention aboard the
Queen Mary. However, at no point did he even ATTEMPT to contact the owners of
the L.A. repeater (whom I personally know and still see one of them once per
month as he is a volunteer examiner in the same testing team as I am in). BP
reported in his ARN, making several statements about this situation that were
outright false. BTW, the trustee had a listed home telephone number that is
even today still in service (as the number to call about testing). As a true
news reporter, one is supposed to make an UNBIASED report, seeking out BOTH
sides of a dispute; he did not do that. It would be different if he sought out
one side of the conflict and that party declined to go "on the record" - but
such is not the case. Supposedly, BP also works for Fox News, so he should
know how to do proper journalism even if he isn't one of their reporters.

I can list several factual points that were incorrectly reported about this
incident, but I don't see the need. The list doesn't aid my point.

From that point onward, it is clear that he is a biased and untrustworty
reporter who is NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH. Combine that with the only
conclusion that can be made about the funding and expenditure of ARN and his
failure to disclose such when asked and required to by law - that he is putting
the majority of contributions into his own pocket, and you should get what I
reasonably conclude: That he is a lying weasel who is bilking the [amateur
radio] public out of their money by using a alleged non-profit as a front.

I could probably get more truthful information about amateur radio from "The
National Enquirer" than I could from Bill Pasternak.

If you want to make your point, why don't you either document your
concerns to the FCC or the IRS, since they are the two most likely agencies
to
have an official opinion on the matter...

Lastly, the federal tax codes allow for a percentage of "charitable
donations" to be used for administrative (eg: salaries) purposes. I've met
Bill Pasternak and I dare say he's sharp enough to have made sure that his
finances are TDC with the law.

Unless you can prove differently...?!?!? (My bet's on "PO'd
indignation"
more than valid complaint)

You don't have to tell me what the IRS allows - remember that I used to BE a
"revenuer." The only way for "newsline" to have expenses exceeding
$1k/month,
after comparing their operations to that of others like "RAIN" and "TWIAR" is
if BP is paying himself a salary that is at least 50% of that amount - much
more than what he is representing to the public. I haven't gotten around to
pulling his form 990 yet (via a request on form 4506-A), but we already know
what we're going to find there....

We "KNOW"....?!?!

No, "we" don't.

You've been whining about his posts here for over two years now Dieter and
I haven't seen a single thing that indicates that you've done anything BUT
whine about it.

Nor do I think it would be a wise idea on your part.

You will note that it's no secret that I have done a form 990 search on one
of
the local amateur repeater frequency coordination organizations a few years
ago, and upon finding no filings (yet a collection of "dues" from members),
asked the NFCC to decertify them. This was in addition to their failure to
even acknowledge coordination applications filed with them or act on any (any
action - acceptance, denial, or even receipt). That particular group has
since
become a bit "more responsible" to the public since then....

Be careful about what you suggest - you may get it.

Then all you will have done is proven that you were right and I was
wrong...the world will go on. I would say "Gee, Dieter, you were right". I
might even send you a gift certificate for dinner on me...

So far all I see is your personal dislike for Bill Pasternak.

However if he WERE investigated by the IRS, these archives could be used
to validate a personal vendetta by you against him...Since you seem to "know it
all" when it comes to IRS policies and procedures, I assume you ALSO know what
recourse Bill could have should it be proven that you tried to use the IRS as a
source of intimidation against him, don't you...?!?!

Of course: That's why WHEN the complaint against him goes in, it will be well
documented. There is no recourse against a well-founded complaint (even if it
should be proven wrong).

Additionally, there is no legitimate purpose for him to post his entire
transcript weekly. Those who want to read it will go to his website where it
exists and don't need it here. To post it here (instead of merely posting a
link to it when it is revised each week) is SPAM - and YOU KNOW IT.

It is NOT spam, Dieter.

The content IS relevent to Amateur Radio practice AND policies, therefore
is absolutely pertinent to this forum.

You forget that the newsgroup charter FORBIDS its posting. Periodic bulletins
require permission - and he has permission to post only on "rec.radio.info" and
"rec.radio.amateur.misc", not to "rec.radio.amateur.policy." Furthermore, he
KNOWS this because he is the one who sought permission to post to the other
groups in the first place. It is SPAM because is it a regular posting in
violation of group policy referring to a web site.

If you don't want to read it, skip over it. When I open my newsreader I
can see the thread title, and if it's obviously spam (the aforementioned "SEE
MY TEEN WIFE..." kinda crap), has anything to do with N0VFP, AB8MQ or
"Twistedhed", I simply mark ir "READ" and that's that.

There is alot of spam that is not easily traceable. This one, ARN, is. That's
why I have pursued it.

Good luck making your case. If I were asked to render an opinion on the
matter to a federal investigator, you know how I'd vote.

As one of those he has scammed, I bet.

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
g...

As a true
news reporter, one is supposed to make an UNBIASED report, seeking out
BOTH
sides of a dispute; he did not do that. It would be different if he
sought out
one side of the conflict and that party declined to go "on the record" -
but
such is not the case. Supposedly, BP also works for Fox News, so he
should
know how to do proper journalism even if he isn't one of their reporters.


There appears to be no reporter today who meets that ideal of unbiased
reporting.

From that point onward, it is clear that he is a biased and untrustworty
reporter who is NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH.

As appears to be the case with any news media today.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/19/2004 1:33 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

The FACT that he is compensating himself "some amount" isn't the problem.
It's
the AMOUNT of compensation and the fact that he REFUSES to disclose that to
the
public that is the problem.

I've had some interesting "back channel" conversations with people who
should know what's going on, and so far these people don't know who Dieter
Stussy is, nor why he's running off at the mouth about Bill Pasternak.

The "ARRL news" is
not comparable because it's part of a larger organization that does other
things and we don't have the requisite information to separate just the
news-gathering costs from the other activities.

That's an excuse, Dieter. They certainly CAN seperate those
expenses.

I am certain that they can, but I haven't seen those separated out in a
public
statement, so I can't use them to compare.

I am willing to be the ARRL, worth figures in seven or eight digits,
spends a bit more than $1000 a month in it's "news" gathering and distribution.

And I bet the folks a the League, also a 501(c)(3) organization, get
compensated rather adequately.

So...MY question is who in the heck is Dieter Stussy to determine
what is fair and reasonable compensation for doing a legal
thing...?!?!

A person who is a member of the PUBLIC who is questioning and HAS THE RIGHT
TO
QUESTION a charity into its reasonableness, else ask the IRS to revoke its
non-profit status.

I didn't question your "right" to question, Dieter.

I asked who were YOU to decide WHAT is fair and reasonable. What
credentials make YOU qualified to suggest that you know what Bill ought to be
bringing in, keeping, etc...

But so far...even by your own admission, what Bill's doing is
legal and your only "beef" is that he's not doing it for free.

I do not agree that what he is doing is legal. He has not disclosed when
asked
and non-profits MUST disclose.

Then why hasn't the IRS doen something about it?

My take on this is that he IS "disclos(ing)" what the IRS wants to see,
and you're just not happy with what YOU see...Ever since Jim and Tammy Bakker
screwed over thier "congregation", the IRS has been very acutely aware of what
goes on with "non-profits".

A "flat rate" number at $29 might be for residential service, but
certainly not for a business, even a charitable one.

The amount I used is also about the same for business use customers per line.
Look it up in the phone book. The difference is less than $2/month.

"The book" is not the same in all communities, Dieter.

Then stop your incessant whining and refer it to the Attorney
General's office.

You asked me to explain my position. My "whining" is at your request.
...Also, who's to say that I haven't referred him to the state's AG or to the
IRS (to challenge his non-profit status)?

No...your "whining" is at your own initiation, otherwise we wouldn't be
having these exchanges.

And like I said about your "complaints" to the AG or IRS...It may very
well backfire on you. As a matter of fact, I bet on it.

This all started by my comments about his posts being SPAM on this group.
You
asked why. I'd say that you got more than what you asked for.

Nope...I'd say that YOU were the one who got more than they bargained for.


Sorry you don't agree, but I think you're going to pursue this and find
yourself getting your nose rubbbed in it.

If you're not sufficiently confident that you can make a case to
him that BP is doing something illegal, then chances are he's NOT
doing anything illegal.

Or he is hiding his fraud on the public extremely well. Remember that the
"best" conspiricy is the one that no one knows about.

You are accusing a well known and respected person of commiting fraud in a
public forum.

I think you're going to get your nose rubbed in it. I think your best
response to the whole deal is to just click over the thread when it pops up.

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...


And I bet "the list" could and would only be viewed as a "he said/she
said", and that life goes on.

There are issues a whole lot more important than this flimsy complaint
about a story YOU claim was misrepresented.

From that point onward, it is clear that he is a biased and untrustworty
reporter who is NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH.

YOUR truth, Dieter?

Deiter, sounds like the sum total of all Yell Yell Marine postings.
Interesting how he can argue both sides out of both sides. I think he
missed his calling - he should be an advocate for the devil. Life
goes on.