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.

"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

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?"

"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 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

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"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.

Well, I will say this:

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

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.). 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.

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.]


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

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

"D. Stussy" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"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.

Well, I will say this:

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

It isn't a matter of "was able". It's more a matter of "doesn't care".
So far, you're the only person remotely interested in your "conclusion".

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.). 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.

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.]

I'll just assume that you actually have a life.

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

I haven't wished for anything and I'm pretty sure that Steve hasn't
wished for anything. I certainly haven't pushed you into anything. If
my words have that kind of influence over you, you have other issues
which need to be addressed.

I don't find Pasternak's amateur radio news posts offensive. You do.
I view your carping and whining far more annoying than anything
Pasternak does.

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

Sure. There's plenty of precendent all around.

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 don't view this as a fight. I don't owe you a reasonable or alternate
explanation.

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.

Go ahead and force his hand, Don Q.

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.

Well, the excitement and melodrama continue to build over this molehill.

Dave K8MN