Question:

Have you ever thought about going fishing? Catch fish and eat them? Pack a lunch….go sit by some water…come home with supper for yourself? Learn how to clean fish and all… Learn about the tides, the weather, the phases of the moon, things that effect the willingness of fish to bite your bait? Spend time outside. By yourself. Go fishing for a few months. You’re down south you can go fishing right through the winter. I think you need to go fishing for a while. It sounds like you gettig ready to make a bad decision to me. Go fishing for a while, I bet it would help. Damo

Response:

damod…@webtv.net wrote in message <news:16298-3E0B5193-72@storefull-2194.public.lawson.webtv.net>… > Have you ever thought about going fishing? > Catch fish and eat them? > Pack a lunch….go sit by some water…come home with supper for > yourself? > Learn how to clean fish and all…

That might not be a bad idea for a weekend hobby. It will save me a few trips to the grocery store.

Response:

I don’t think I would make a very good security officer. I’m too cowardly and too pigheaded. I am also shy, probably best defined as a "weenie". Look it up in your dictionary…if you don’t know what it means.

Response:

"Bird Brain" <irond…@netzero.net> wrote in message

news:641333f6.0212241230.2e1baea8@posting.google.com… > I don’t think I would make a very good security officer. I’m too > cowardly and too pigheaded. I am also shy, probably best defined as a > "weenie". > Look it up in your dictionary…if you don’t know what it means.

Noun:  Weenie A smooth textured sausage of minced beef or pork usually smoked; often served on a bread roll. Michelle

Response:

irond…@netzero.net (Bird Brain) wrote in message <news:641333f6.0212241230.2e1baea8@posting.google.com>… > I don’t think I would make a very good security officer. I’m too > cowardly and too pigheaded. I am also shy, probably best defined as a > "weenie". > Look it up in your dictionary…if you don’t know what it means.

Actually, I might not make such a bad security officer, I guess. I wouldn’t mind working in something more "manual" in nature, like construction or something along those lines, but I am not very good with tools and have no experience operating heavy equipment. Most of those types of jobs require at least *some* experienec, and when they are entry level, they are usually low-paying. With such low wages, I might as well work washing dishes…something I do have experience in. On the other hand, a good thing about entry level positions is that they will sometimes eventually train you in the other more skilled positions. I guess I could also try to get a job in printing. But I have very little experience in it beyond my education itself. And even my education was often lacking, because I never participated very much in the organizations and other extracurricular activities, where I could have learned more than just what I heard in the lectures or did in the labs. I might as well face it…I’m an idiot in many ways. I should have had enough sense to have either changed my major or dropped out of school altogether, rather than study something my heart wasn’t really in. When I think about it, I feel a little queasy.

Response:

Hilary Duff will be on Conan O’Brien tonite.

Response:

"Stuart J. Shillinglaw" <stuart.shilling…@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:Xns961585AFC36BAstuartshillinglawnew@24.66.94.159… | Reality check, most of the popular media is about rating implants. What am | I doing sitting in front of a computer. I’m looking at some Hilary Duff porn. She ain’t 18 yet, so I’d better get it deleted right away!

Response:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J46E225AA — Stuart J. Shillinglaw in Winnipeg http://shillinglaw.atspace.com/ http://schizophrenia.atspace.org/webrings.html

Response:

That’s what she said to me on The George Lopez Show the other night on her "Poetry Slam Night."

Response:

Attorneys Spar Over Jackson’s Financial Records Trial Expected To Resume Monday Mar 11, 2005         5:10 pm US/Central SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) Michael Jackson stayed home to recuperate from a back injury Friday while his attorneys were in court battling prosecution efforts to expose financial records they say will show that the multimillionaire superstar is "on the precipice of bankruptcy." The judge in Jackson’s child molestation trial said he would allow only minimal evidence on Jackson’s financial condition, saying "I don’t want to inundate the jury with a lot of figures that don’t tell a story. I don’t think you can turn the jury into accountants." In spite of defense denials, Assistant District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss repeated his assertions that Jackson is in "financial peril" and all of his troubles "will all come crashing down on him in December of 2005." Defense attorney Robert Sanger angrily objected to Auchincloss’ technique of providing "sound bites for the media" in his arguments rather than addressing issues pertinent to the case. He said the prosecutor’s focus on Jackson’s current finances has no relevance to his finances in 2003, the year at issue in the trial. "We have more than enough reason to believe that Mr. Jackson is on the precipice of bankruptcy," said Auchincloss. "He is in debt to the tune of $300 million and has liabilities close to $400 million." He did not explain if he was talking about two different sums or including the debts in the sum of liabilities. Auchincloss continued to rattle off allegations about Jackson’s habits as what he called "a spend-a-holic" who has "an insatiable appetite for money." He said that in the years 1999 to 2001 Jackson was spending $35 million a year while earning only $11 million to $12 million. The judge responded: "I do not wish to extend this trial with a lot of emphasis on his finances," and Auchincloss finally agreed that "all we are looking for is a concise snapshot of the defendant’s financial condition." Melville suggested that is all he will allow. He said he understood the prosecution theory that Jackson had reason to "take drastic actions to protect his image" after the airing of a damaging documentary called "Living With Michael Jackson." But he urged lawyers to confer and reach an agreement by next Thursday on the issue of financial records. Jackson’s spokeswoman Raymone Bain told The Associated Press that Jackson continued to be in pain Friday from a back injury that caused him to be late for court on Thursday, an incident which incurred the judge’s wrath. There was no discussion of the matter in court Friday. Meanwhile, Melville issued a number of other rulings, among them: –He said that comedian Jay Leno, an expected witness in the molestation trial, can continue to crack jokes at Jackson’s expense as long as he doesn’t discuss the facts of his testimony. "I am not attempting to prevent anybody from making a living in the normal way that they make their living," the judge said, adding his own punch line: "I’d like him to tell good jokes … but I guess I can’t control that." –He refused to let the jurors take a field trip to Jackson’s Neverland estate. Jackson lawyer Thomas Mesereau Jr. said it was essential for jurors to see the locations that have been central to testimony. The judge said the jury was seeing enough through videotapes. "I’ve never seen so many videotapes," he said, "and I’m sure I haven’t seen the end of them." –Melville rejected a request by media attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. to release video exhibits in the case for broadcast by TV outlets. "The public funds the courts and the public has the right to see this evidence," said Boutrous. The judge said those who want to see the videos can come to court. Boutrous filed an appeal later Friday with the 2nd District Court of Appeal. –Melville reiterated that he won’t let the defense "relitigate" a lawsuit brought by the accuser’s mother against J.C. Penny stores which resulted in her receiving a $150,000 settlement after claiming sexual abuse and battery. The defense seeks to show the family has a history of making false claims to get money. –The judge said rulings he has made in the past about testimony involving comedian George Lopez will stand, but added, "There is more involvement with Mr. Lopez and his family than was originally thought and you might want to call him (as a witness) for other purposes." He did not elaborate.

Response:

Question:

If I was to obtain my CPA here in America, and work for a little while then move to either the UK or Australia would being a CPA carry any weight over there?  Would it be laterally transferrable, or would it just be recognition (if that)?  Is there a test similar in the UK or Australia to the CPA in America? Thank you, Geoffrey

Response:

Would advise you visit http://www.icaew.co.uk/ http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xchg http://www.icaa.org.au/ and review the relevant section.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If I was to obtain my CPA here in America, and work for a little while then move to either the UK or Australia would being a CPA carry any weight over there?  Would it be laterally transferrable, or would it just be recognition (if that)?  Is there a test similar in the UK or Australia to the CPA in America? Thank you, Geoffrey

Response:

I guess it depends what work you do. Clearly, the tax & corporate laws are different. Also, the accounting standards are different (Australia is moving to European standards on 1 Jan 2005). But then, I see the occasional advert for accountants who know a bit about American standards. You’re lucky that so many multinationals are domiciled in the US! Here are three good job search engines from Australia www.seek.com.au www.mycareer.com.au www.cajobs.com.au

Response:

Recently met a CPA working for PwC. Shortage of accountants down under…maybe   it’s worth considering joining one of the big firms, get your CPA and ask for a secondment. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I guess it depends what work you do. Clearly, the tax & corporate laws are different. Also, the accounting standards are different (Australia is moving to European standards on 1 Jan 2005). But then, I see the occasional advert for accountants who know a bit about American standards. You’re lucky that so many multinationals are domiciled in the US! Here are three good job search engines from Australia www.seek.com.au www.mycareer.com.au www.cajobs.com.au

Response:

Question:

OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike That’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it?  You wouldn’t expect an intelligence-challenged type like Deano to have an answer to your question, would you? — Carl A. in FL

I don’t think he did but you on the otherhand should know better what with your incredibly huge IQ and everything. TOP TEN BUSH LIES THE LIST: After I finished writing a 300-page book detailing a wide assortment of George W. Bush lies-scores of deceptions, if not many more (I haven’t counted)-my publisher requested that I produce a top-ten list of Bush lies. It would be good for marketing, I was told. In my mind, the "top" lies numbered far more than ten. And after all, the book has fourteen chapters. A list of ten would have to leave out entire swaths of this work, including sections on such important subjects as global warming, missile defense, environmental standards, Bush’s failed energy plan, and Afghanistan reconstruction. It also would have to rely upon a false equivalency in order to provide a full flavor of the book. One could easily argue that the ten most significant lies of the Bush presidency all related to his campaign for war in Iraq. But such a list would not be much good from a sales perspective, for the point of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception is to show that Bush has lied his way through most serious policy matters (as well as through his bid for the presidency). Thus, I’m forced, as I brutally boil down 120,000 words to ten bullet items, to rely upon lies that represent larger body of lies. So here is a painfully constructed list-arranged in quasi-chronological order–that demonstrates the severity and range of Bush’s serial lying but that only skims the surface. For the complete picture-as well as for all the details that support the below accusations-please read the book. 10. "I have been very candid about my past." Bush said this during a press conference a few days before Election Day 2000. He was then in the middle of media firestorm that followed the revelation that he had once been arrested for drunken driving. Of course, this statement was untrue. He uttered it while he was trying to explain why he had not been "candid" about his arrest record. And during the campaign, he had not been "candid" about other significant matters, including what seemed to be a missing year in his National Guard service (which did not jibe with what he wrote about his service in his autobiography) and his apparent (though unacknowledged) shift from supporting abortion rights in the late-1970s to opposing them in the 1990s. He also was not "candid" about the tax plans he had pushed while governor of Texas. He always referred to them as "tax cuts" and did not mention that his major tax proposal included both tax cuts for property owners and an increase in the sales tax and the creation of a new business tax. 9. "I’m a uniter not a divider." This was a Bush catchphrase, a mantra. It was shorthand for his claim that he engaged in positive, not negative, politics and could heal a political culture ripped apart by the bitter ideological and partisan combat of the Clinton years. Yet during the 2000 presidential campaign and the Florida fracas, Bush and his lieutenants engaged in down-and-dirty and divisive political maneuvers. Just ask Senator John McCain, Bush’s main Republican opponent, whose record on veterans affairs was falsely attacked by a Bush surrogate and who was accused falsely by the Bush campaign of opposing research for breast cancer. As president-elect, Bush nominated one of the most divisive ideologues in Washington, former Senator John Ashcroft, to be attorney general. During a pre-inauguration interview, Bush acknowledged that he expected Ashcroft to be a lightning rod. But would-be uniters-not-dividers do not shove lightning rods up the backsides of their opponents. Another example: during the 2002 congressional campaign, Bush accused Democrats-who differed with him on employment rules for the new Department of Homeland Security-of sacrificing national security for their own petty purposes. He did this to help elect Republicans to office. Such a move was well within his rights as a political player, but not the action of a fellow who cares more about uniting than dividing. 8. "My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans." All the available slots of this top-ten list could be filled by statements Bush made to sell his tax cuts at various points-on the campaign trail, in 2001 (for the first major tax-cuts battle), and in 2003 (for the second major tax-cuts battle). But I chose an assertion from 2001 that echoed statements from the campaign trail, that would be reprised in 2003, and that represented the best-sounding argument for his tax cuts. Bush frequently claimed his tax cuts would help low- and middle-income Americans, and in 2000 and 2001 he often spoke of a mythical single-mom waitress, making $22,000 or so, who would be guided into the middle-class by his tax cuts. The point was to make it seem as if he truly cared for hard-pressed Americans and that his tax cuts did indeed embody his promise of "compassionate conservatism." (By the way, I am not placing on this list Bush’s claim that he is a "compassionate conservative." That’s a rather relative term more suitable for judgment than truth-based evaluation.) But when the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche reviewed his tax plan for Time magazine during the 2000 campaign, it found that his beloved waitress would receive no reduction in her taxes. Zippo. In 2001, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that this waitress might gain $200 from Bush’s tax cuts if she managed to pull in $25,000 a year. But such a sum would not place her on the highway to the middle class. In fact, about 12 million low- and moderate-income families received no tax relief from Bush’s 2001 tax cuts (and millions of families were left out of his 2003 package). His plan unlocked few doors. Instead, about 45 percent of the 2001 package was slated to go to the top 1 percent of income earners. In 2003, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated that individuals earning between $16,000 and $29,000 would net about $99 from Bush’s proposed tax cuts. Again, not an amount that would cover the entrance fee for a middle-class life. 7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research." That was what Bush said during an August 9, 2001, speech, announcing his decision to permit the federal funding of stem cell research that only used stem cells lines that existed before his speech. Bush was presenting his policy as a Solomon-like compromise. Religious right leaders and the Catholic Church were opposed to all stem cell research because it uses cells extracted from five-day old blastocysts (or embryos) in a process that destroys the embryos. (These embryos usually are leftovers created by in vitro fertilization at fertility clinics and no longer needed by the couples for which they were produced). But many prominent Republican donors and patient advocacy groups supported stem cell research, noting that scientists believed that studying stem cells (which have the potential to grow into any one of the more than 200 different types of human cells) could lead to treatments for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other terrible diseases. In his speech, Bush said that 60 stem cell lines already existed-"where the life and death decision has already been made"–and that these lines could support a vital and vibrant research effort. Consequently, he said, federally funding could be limited to underwriting research that employed only these lines. Bush was trying to have it both ways. He could appease his social conservative supporters by saying no to any federal support for new stem cell lines, and he could claim to support research that might potentially help millions of people. There was one problem. The 60 pre-existing lines did not exist. The number was closer to a dozen-if that-an amount that experts in the field did not consider sufficient for research purposes. And when scientists and media reports convincingly discredited Bush’s count-which Bush might have initially assumed to be correct-the Bush administration kept repeating its untruthful position. Sticking to the 60-lines fantasy (or lie) permitted Bush to avoid making an explicit decision to curtail stem cell research. But in effect that was what he had done without admitting it. 6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." Bush said this in November 2002, as he appointed Henry Kissinger to be chairman of an independent 9/11 commission that Bush had orignially opposed. (Kissinger lasted two weeks in the job.) But Bush has not encouraged the uncovering of every detail. His administration did not turn over information to the congressional 9/11 inquiry about intelligence warnings the White House reviewed before 9/11. The administration also refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings-including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"-were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them. Moreover, the administration claimed that Bush’s awareness of these warnings (not the warnings themselves) was classified information-an argument unprecedented in the modern history of national security secrets. Bush also refused to let the congressional inquiry release the portion of its final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi citizens or officials. By resorting to such secrecy-which happened to keep hidden information that … read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike Thanks for asking.  Not just Bush but his entire administration is guilty…

You can demonstrate that NONE of those statements is a lie, as you well know.  It should be clear to you that you can only establish something as a lie when you can prove that a statement, even if wrong, was KNOWN to be inaccurate at the time it was made.  You cannot do that. cheers bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002 Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention August 26, 2002 If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing December 2, 2002 We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush State of the Union Address January 28, 2003 We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council February 5, 2003 We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George W. Bush Radio Address February 8, 2003 If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct. Colin Powell Interview with Radio France International February 28, 2003 So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council March 7, 2003 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari Fleisher Press Briefing March 21, 2003 There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference March 22, 2003 I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman Washington Post, p. A27 March 23, 2003 One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark Press Briefing March 22, 2003 We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003 Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty. Neocon scholar Robert Kagan Washington Post op-ed April 9, 2003 But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing April 10, 2003 We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush NBC Interview April 24, 2003 There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Press Briefing April 25, 2003 We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 3, 2003 I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now. Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters May 4, 2003 We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Fox News Interview May 4, 2003 I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein — because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 6, 2003 U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice Reuters Interview May 12, 2003 I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago — I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago — whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne Press Briefing May 13, 2003 Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps Interview with Reporters May 21, 2003 Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff NBC Today Show interview May 26, 2003 They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer. Donald Rumsfeld Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations May 27, 2003 For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003 It was a surprise to me then – it remains a surprise to me now – that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there. Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Press Interview May 30, 2003 Do I think we’re going to find something?  Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there’s a lot of information out there." Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency Press Conference

Response:

Oh hell, child’s play: http://www.sundayherald.com/35264  The highlights:

<biiiiiiiig snip of _allegations_ Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, disputes the claim, saying the CIA cleared the reference made by Bush. TB

Such "proof" is typical of Liberals. Lon

Response:

Thanks for asking.  Not just Bush but his entire administration is guilty… Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002

You may want to check the generally accepted definition of "lying." Knowingly telling a falsehood would qualify, expressing a conclusion based on misinformation is not. Or were all the people listed below guilty of "lying"? Weapons of Mass Destruction….. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…" Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …" Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 "Bush made up plan in Texas to help his oil buddies and now is paying bribes to world leaders for support in Iraq." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 18, 2003 (CNN, ABC and Others) Sen. Ted Kennedy, "explaining" his unsober comments about President Bush’s Iraq policy, including his claim that the president is "bribing" foreign officials: Asked by Fox News if he had evidence of his charge, Kennedy said Tuesday: "Just yesterday the administration announced a $8.5 billion loan to Turkey, and under the conditions of which they are going to be supportive of our troops in Iraq. Now you can say it’s an incentive, you can say it’s coercion, you can say bribery–you choose the word." Hey Teddy, how about "loan"? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm

Response:

He’s got DNC Hq on speed dial though. LZ

ringring Hello, this is the DNC automated FactFone. Please concentrate on your question for 30 seconds, and then press the pound sign. Thank you. The answer to your question is, "It’s just commonsense." Have a warmfuzzy day, and please send your Bush tax rebate to the DNC. — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.

Response:

The relevance is that until Bush picked up Clinton’s kicked can and stuck it up Saddam’s butt, Clinton and the Democrats also apparently thought Saddam had WMDs, but didn’t have the political balls to do the things they said needed to be done. Even as late as the SOTU address, the Democrats, in their response, concurred with there being WMDs. When it became apparent that Bush’s action was a spectacular success, the Democrats started backtracking and covering up their catholes, and whining, "Where are the WMD’s? Did Bush lie to us?" — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.

And they are still whining the same whine. In the mean time Kerry continues to pick up vital endorsements. First Kim Jung Il, now Ramsey Clark. Can’t help but wonder when Osama will jump on board the train to elect Kerry. — Everyday I beat my own previous record for number of consecutive days I have stayed alive. http://www.bobhatch.com

Response:

Clinton also acted with numerous raids, just didn’t looking for war like Bush did. Yer right! Clinton was looking for distraction.

 So he couldn’t win either way. Deano

Response:

    Your evidence for this is? You seem to think in terms of political parties FAR more than I do. I didn’t have much respect for Bubba before he was caught with his pants down; but, the relevance of Clinton to the current discussion escapes me. In my lifetime we’ve had lots of liars, from both parties, in the White House. TB

The relevance is that until Bush picked up Clinton’s kicked can and stuck it up Saddam’s butt, Clinton and the Democrats also apparently thought Saddam had WMDs, but didn’t have the political balls to do the things they said needed to be done. Even as late as the SOTU address, the Democrats, in their response, concurred with there being WMDs. When it became apparent that Bush’s action was a spectacular success, the Democrats started backtracking and covering up their catholes, and whining, "Where are the WMD’s? Did Bush lie to us?" — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.

Response:

Clinton also acted with numerous raids, just didn’t looking for war like Bush did.

Yer right! Clinton was looking for distraction.

Response:

    Oh hell, child’s play: http://www.sundayherald.com/35264  The highlights: The Sunday Herald?  They have more access to intel than the CIA and MI5?

    LOL, it doesn’t take MI5 to figure this one out. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Niger and Iraq: the war’s biggest lie? The CIA, in what one British intelligence source described as a ‘wise attempt at an ass-saving manoeuvre’, also tried to have reference to Iraq’s uranium links to Niger deleted from Bush’s State of the Union address. CIA officials say they ‘communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence’. Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, disputes the claim, saying the CIA cleared the reference made by Bush. TB Sounds like a "he said-she said" case.

    I quess you didn’t read the whole article. The thing was an obvious fake. If you can find anyone reasonably reliable who thought/thinks otherwise I’d love to see the evidence. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What intel did Clinton use when he bombed Iraq in 1998? President Clinton’s statement TEXT OF THE PRESIDENT’S BRIEFING ON IRAQI AIRSTRIKES. Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. [snip ya da ya da] Looks to me like the only difference was in adding ground troops and permanently getting rid of the trouble maker. It’s obvious that if Bush lied, Clinton lied.  But you didn’t complain, THEN.

    Your evidence for this is? You seem to think in terms of political parties FAR more than I do. I didn’t have much respect for Bubba before he was caught with his pants down; but, the relevance of Clinton to the current discussion escapes me. In my lifetime we’ve had lots of liars, from both parties, in the White House. TB

Response:

The Sunday Herald?  They have more access to intel than the CIA and MI5?

Yes and apparently it’s more accurate. It’s obvious that if Bush lied, Clinton lied.  But you didn’t complain, THEN. LZ

Clinton also acted with numerous raids, just didn’t looking for war like Bush did. Deano

Response:

Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike

Thanks for asking.  Not just Bush but his entire administration is guilty… Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002 Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention August 26, 2002 If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing December 2, 2002 We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush State of the Union Address January 28, 2003 We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council February 5, 2003 We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George W. Bush Radio Address February 8, 2003 If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct. Colin Powell Interview with Radio France International February 28, 2003 So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council March 7, 2003 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari Fleisher Press Briefing March 21, 2003 There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference March 22, 2003 I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman Washington Post, p. A27 March 23, 2003 One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark Press Briefing March 22, 2003 We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003 Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty. Neocon scholar Robert Kagan Washington Post op-ed April 9, 2003 But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing April 10, 2003 We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush NBC Interview April 24, 2003 There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Press Briefing April 25, 2003 We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 3, 2003 I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now. Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters May 4, 2003 We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Fox News Interview May 4, 2003 I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein — because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 6, 2003 U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice Reuters Interview May 12, 2003 I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago — I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago — whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne Press Briefing May 13, 2003 Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps Interview with Reporters May 21, 2003 Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff NBC Today Show interview May 26, 2003 They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer. Donald Rumsfeld Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations May 27, 2003 For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003 It was a surprise to me then – it remains a surprise to me now – that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there. Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Press Interview May 30, 2003 Do I think we’re going to find something?  Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there’s a lot of information out there." Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency Press Conference

Response:

Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike

IMO Bush didn’t lie. I beleive he just isn’t smart "nuff to realize he was lied to by his handlers.  Now thats really scary. Cecil

Response:

OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike That’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it?  You wouldn’t expect an intelligence-challenged type like Deano to have an answer to your question, would you?

He’s got DNC Hq on speed dial though. LZ

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Found the perfect jail or Martha Stewart.  It’s the Benton County Jail in Benton, AR. (www.co.benton.ar.us/Sheriff/Inmate.htm) This jail bills itself as the ONLY totally no frills jail in the nation.  Some of the benefits for the inmates are: NO, TV, Radios, Cigarettes, Deodorant, Coffee, Tea, Milk, Razor Blades, Hair Cuts. Soft Drinks and  No hot meals.  Good Luck Martha. Now, I know if she gets any jail time it will be in one of those Country Club jails the Federal Government runs to the rich and famous. Bet if Jacko were to be confined there the rules would change fast. How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm

Which Clinton? Where would Martha Stewart be today if she could have hidden her records in the White House for three years? Where can she go to jail?  All the Federal Correctional Resorts are males only, aren’t they?

Response:

    Oh hell, child’s play: http://www.sundayherald.com/35264  The highlights:

The Sunday Herald?  They have more access to intel than the CIA and MI5? Niger and Iraq: the war’s biggest lie? The CIA, in what one British intelligence source described as a ‘wise attempt at an ass-saving manoeuvre’, also tried to have reference to Iraq’s uranium links to Niger deleted from Bush’s State of the Union address. CIA officials say they ‘communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence’. Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, disputes the claim, saying the CIA cleared the reference made by Bush. TB

Sounds like a "he said-she said" case. What intel did Clinton use when he bombed Iraq in 1998? President Clinton’s statement TEXT OF THE PRESIDENT’S BRIEFING ON IRAQI AIRSTRIKES. Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Looks to me like the only difference was in adding ground troops and permanently getting rid of the trouble maker. It’s obvious that if Bush lied, Clinton lied.  But you didn’t complain, THEN. LZ

Response:

Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano

You mean like Clinton bombing Serbia?  Did you notice that Kerry supported that although Clinton did not get UN permission?  Yet NOW he faults Bush for not having UN permission to invade Iraq?  Of course Kerry voted for us to invade Iraq but he now claims it didn’t count because he THOUGHT we would have UN permission. His ad also blames Bush for the troops lacking body armor.  He must have forgotten that he voted against funding for the military. Stay tuned.  He may have an updated version tomorrow. LZ

Response:

Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike

That’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it?  You wouldn’t expect an intelligence-challenged type like Deano to have an answer to your question, would you? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm

Response:

Oh Hell, here’s another one who’s been in a coma or visiting another planet during recent history… The Iraqi Liberation Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 360 to 38; the Senate vote was unanimous.  Please note the content of the Act, and, most especially, its date and the name of the Chief Executive who signed it into law: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

Thank you for the clarification. But then, what can one expect from a 119 scorer? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike

    Oh hell, child’s play: http://www.sundayherald.com/35264  The highlights: Niger and Iraq: the war’s biggest lie? Well before the IAEA rained on the pro-war parade, the CIA was telling its masters in the Bush administration that the British intelligence on the Niger connection was nonsense. Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office received the forged evidence in 2002 — before Bush’s State of the Union address on January 28 this year — and passed it to the CIA. The CIA then dispatched former US ambassador Joseph C Wilson to Africa to check out the claim. Wilson came back saying the intelligence was unreliable and the CIA passed Cheney the assessment. Nevertheless, Bush kept the claim in his speech, and Cheney said, just days before the war began in March, that: ‘We know (Saddam’s) been absolutely trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’ He also poured scorn on the IAEA for saying the documents were forged. ‘I think Mr El Baradei frankly is wrong … (The IAEA) has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.’ Wilson said it was Cheney who forced the CIA to try to come up with a credible threat from Iraqi nukes. ‘I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. A legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretences,’ he wrote. Wilson also said: ‘It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question: ‘What else are they lying about?” Wilson is no rogue official. He was lauded by George Bush Snr for ‘fighting the good fight’ after he became the last US diplomat to confront Saddam in the run-up to the first Gulf war. The irony isn’t lost on Wilson, who says: ‘I guess he didn’t realise that one of these days I would carry that fight against his son’s administration.’ Greg Thielmann, director of the State Department’s Office of Strategic, Proliferation and Military Issues, says the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research ruled the Niger connection implausible and told US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Thielmann also said Iraq posed no nuclear threat, and Team Bush distorted intelligence to fit its drive for war. Richard Kerr, a former CIA deputy director now leading a review of the agency’s pre-war intelligence on Iraqi WMDs, says intelligence was ambiguous and the CIA was under pressure from the Bush administration. The CIA, in what one British intelligence source described as a ‘wise attempt at an ass-saving manoeuvre’, also tried to have reference to Iraq’s uranium links to Niger deleted from Bush’s State of the Union address. CIA officials say they ‘communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence’. Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, disputes the claim, saying the CIA cleared the reference made by Bush. TB

Response:

How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL

Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano

Response:

Oh Hell, here’s another one who’s been in a coma or visiting another planet during recent history… The Iraqi Liberation Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 360 to 38; the Senate vote was unanimous.  Please note the content of the Act, and, most especially, its date and the name of the Chief Executive who signed it into law: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano

Response:

How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Or Bush, hell, lying to get a country in a war should be good for a few years putaway… Deano

OK, Deano…. put up or shut up time again…. please tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush lied…… Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Found the perfect jail or Martha Stewart.  It’s the Benton County Jail in Benton, AR. (www.co.benton.ar.us/Sheriff/Inmate.htm) This jail bills itself as the ONLY totally no frills jail in the nation.  Some of the benefits for the inmates are: NO, TV, Radios, Cigarettes, Deodorant, Coffee, Tea, Milk, Razor Blades, Hair Cuts. Soft Drinks and  No hot meals.  Good Luck Martha. Now, I know if she gets any jail time it will be in one of those Country Club jails the Federal Government runs to the rich and famous. Bet if Jacko were to be confined there the rules would change fast.

How come Clinton isn’t on the list yet? — Carl A. in FL Enjoy photo-journals of my travels at http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm

Response:

Found the perfect jail or Martha Stewart.  It’s the Benton County Jail in Benton, AR. (www.co.benton.ar.us/Sheriff/Inmate.htm) This jail bills itself as the ONLY totally no frills jail in the nation.  Some of the benefits for the inmates are: NO, TV, Radios, Cigarettes, Deodorant, Coffee, Tea, Milk, Razor Blades, Hair Cuts. Soft Drinks and  No hot meals.  Good Luck Martha. Now, I know if she gets any jail time it will be in one of those Country Club jails the Federal Government runs to the rich and famous. Bet if  Jacko were to be confined there the rules would change fast.

Response:

Question:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Uh….excuse me please.

Well, you’re in luck: I just got back from an all-soccer weekend (well, not ~all~ soccer; there ~were~ the kegs of draft beer and the barbecued ribs), and I am so goddamned jazzed about the US team making it this far that I can probably excuse almost anything right now. Maybe even you. Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!! You seem so knowledgable about everything that I thought you might be able to answer a simple question.

Aw, shucks. You know what a sucker I am for smarmy sarcastic flattery, don’t you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I looked at the website that you posted below, you know that sc-irs site, and I saw this on there: This is not an official site of either the Church of Spiritual Technology, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Treasury Department, Scientology, or any Scientology organization, and is not approved or sanctioned by any of them. This is a public service educational news and information site about the strange relationships between the corporation known as Church of Spiritual Technology (doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the United States government. All information on site may be freely used for non-commercial purposes. Now I was wondering why I was able to get to this "public information" site without any problem, but I was not able top get to the OCA survey site that Andrew Barbham created?

HTF would I know? WTF is Andrew Barbham? See: I’m ~not~ knowledgeable about everything, just things that matter. Why is the OCA survey site considered to have copyrighted material,

Hmmmmm. Now, let me stroke my goatee here for a minute… I know! I know! Because the OCA test is copyrighted material solely owned by… (Are you feverishly guessing? Do I have you clutching the edge of your chair? Are you hoping hoping hoping that it’s owned by RTC? Are you ~praying~ that the little lawn ornament Davey Dumbass Miscavige is somehow behind it so your favorite myths and superstitions can finally be sanctified?) BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Nope: the OCA test is solely owned by the corporation created by former Assistant Commissioner of IRS Meade Emory… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1992-06-29bruggink.html#… .and run by the IRS through three non-Scientologist tax attorneys… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1992-06-29bruggink.html#… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-06-07cstbylaws.html… .the corporation known as Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), fraudulently doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1993-12-27cstdbafile.html All right, title, and interest in the OCA test was transferred to CST on Tuesday, 27 February 1996 by Church of Scientology International in a transaction with this description: "Scientology drug rundown auditor course & 1,030 other titles; religious works. Author or co-author: Church of Scientology International, derived from or based upon literary works of L. Ron Hubbard a.k.a. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. Assignment. FULL DOCUMENT RANGE: (In  3229 P151-220)." Now see, if you had your very own copy of the Copyright Transfers database that I’ve been urging you and everyone else to download, you would know this stuff. That database is even linked to on the site you’re whining about, on this page: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/copyrights/copyrightsindex.html Maybe you can even find the link if you’re smart. But even if you’re NOT smart, the record of the OCA test being owned by CST (as a result of that transfer) is here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/copyrights/copyrights21hubon.html Just go there and type "OCA" into your little browser search window and you will immediately find: OWNER: Church of Spiritual Technology TITLE: OCA test NUMBER: TX 3-266-548 (1991) Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!! See, this is like shooting ducks in a barrel now isn’t it? And isn’t it amazing that the COMPLETE answer to your question is right there on that site you are whining about "being able" to access. Maybe I’m not going to be able to excuse you after all. but yet this so called public site that you offered up does not seem to have any restrictions?

That ~I~ offered up? BZZZZZZZZZZTT! No, jackass, I was notified about it here in a.r.s. like the rest of the world, and have since been directing people there for accurate, documented information, since that is what ~I~ find on the site. YMMV. What kind of restrictions would you like to see put on accurate, documented information, little Nazi boy? Why does the Co$ seem to not have any problems with this site?

WTF is the "Co$," moron? That’s probably the root of your problem, is that you spend sleepless nights fretting about THINGS THAT DON’T FUCKING EXIST, you stupid turd. CST, on the other hand, I imagine has MAJOR "problems with this site," but as I read it, there’s not a ~fucking~ thing they can do about it. Last I heard, there is at least a little bit left of the Constitution. Do you understand what I am getting at here?

No. I don’t have a fucking clue what you are "getting at here." I don’t see any copyright violations on that site. Do you? Then cite them. And if you find them (which you won’t) let’s see if CST has the fucking balls to go after them and open themselves up to possible discovery for all of these phantom documents (referenced on that site) that CST principals have laid claim to: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1979-12-15-2intervivos.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1981-10-01estateplan.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-1cstoption.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-2atproposed.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-4markspropose… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-8businessmgmt… Or if they want to open the door to discovery on all the times that Sherman Lenske arranged for "out-of-communication" Mr. "L. Ron Hubbard" to pop up like a fucking Whack-A-Gopher to sign shit, as is described here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/washubbard.html Or if they want to open the door to discovery on the Treasury Department personnel who were in bed with Meade Emory and Sherman Lenske: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/treasdept.html Oh, yeah! I just ~bet~ they want to pick that fight and open those doors to what is referenced on that site. I’ll tell you what: if they do, I would trade tickets to a soccer World Cup final that included the US team to have a seat in THAT courtroom. I would trade fucking SUPER BOWL tickets. Now that I have raised this question I am even more curious as to what your answer will be.

You got it, pal. Please do not hesitate to answer. RD00

Did I seem hesitant to you? http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html

Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!! CL The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag whose excuse for an "editor"–Rod Keller–uses extreme socio-political censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it. Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST–doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller "sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth. "In Wollersheim’s case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."                                   –Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPQ+xDNAKsx0v8qcvEQKb+wCgpxsU5uiZyLYH4v56NbyYTi1jjF8AnRnY YKgR4FLksQ8BfJ4GEihC8wSP =24u9 —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

Mon, 17 Jun 2002 Bozo the Clown masquerading as If you have another explanation, let’s hear it.

Everybody heard it but you. It was in what you cut and it had already been posted in this same thread about four times, man. Get professional help. You are one extreme wanker whacko.

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1

Uh….excuse me please. You seem so knowledgable about everything that I thought you might be able to answer a simple question. I looked at the website that you posted below, you know that sc-irs site, and I saw this on there:  This is not an official site of either the Church of Spiritual Technology, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Treasury Department, Scientology, or any Scientology organization, and is not approved or sanctioned by any of them. This is a public service educational news and information site about the strange relationships between the corporation known as Church of Spiritual Technology (doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the United States government. All information on site may be freely used for non-commercial purposes. Now I was wondering why I was able to get to this "public information" site without any problem, but I was not able top get to the OCA survey site that Andrew Barbham created? Why is the OCA survey site considered to have copyrighted material, but yet this so called public site that you offered up does not seem to have any restrictions? Why does the Co$ seem to not have any problems with this site? Do you understand what I am getting at here? Now that I have raised this question I am even more curious as to what your answer will be. Please do not hesitate to answer. RD00 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. Then, after you have visited his surreal fantasy world, if you want to see the actual, real-world, thoroughly documented ~truth~ of why the Treasury Department is hiding the information, go here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ Be sure to click on their "Complaint Dept." link in the red navigation bar to fully enjoy the irony of the site, but then come back and go to their chronological "Documents" index, here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html

Response:

Mon, 17 Jun 2002 Bozo the Clown masquerading as If you have another explanation, let’s hear it. Everybody heard it but you. It was in what you cut and it had already been posted in this same thread about four times, man. Get professional help. You are one extreme wanker whacko.

Well, that’s one way to avoid answering questions, I suppose.  Even a URL to the explanation would do.  Shouldn’t take much effort to type, huh?  Well, George? — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ "You can lie about ICR all you want."

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The subject of CL’s commentary, But you **are** CL, Randy.

 You know, I am beginning to get the feeling that life is too short  for this shit and that I am fighting a battle of wits with, not just  an unarmed man, but the black knight from Monty Python & the Holy Grail Dave, I ~love~ being part of the Randy McDonald urban legend, but you obviously didn’t get this week’s ARSCC CL Bulletin. I have it on unimpeachable authority that this week I am Pat Broeker. Also the Librarian, I so hope you don’t fantasize about me in a tube top. It is an ugly, ugly, thought. Hideous. It gives me nightmares. Nigel,

–  FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD,  AND BUGGER THE DWARF  HE RODE IN ON!!  8====3  (O 0)    GROETEN — PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL   no real OT has           |n|    (COMMANDER,  FIFTH INVADER FORCE)   ever existed  STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html            

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why."

The document they’re refusing to distribute is an ROI which has always been a series of public documents available upon polite request leave alone upon formal FOIA requests.  This one document is an exception and the IRS refuses to release it. His commentary was on Fredric Rice’s "explanation" about why the Treasury Department is hiding the information.

Because the document is embarrassing to the IRS and the U. S. Treasury and would result in endless demands for criminal prosecutions to be instigated against the crooks investigated and named in the ROI.  It would also result in endless questions about why indictments have not been handed down over the past nine years.  No, make that 11 years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. As CL quite correctly pointed out, Mr. Rice did not provide "a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant."

I guess you’ve not been paying attention. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ "You can lie about ICR all you want."

Response:

On 16 Jun 2002 in – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The document they’re refusing to distribute is an ROI which has always been a series of public documents available upon polite request leave alone upon formal FOIA requests.  This one document is an exception and the IRS refuses to release it.

Yes, well, that also goes only to the fact that the IRS refuses to release it, doesn’t it, and not to the reason why. Perhaps you, also, overlooked the operative word, "why." I believe that all who have participated in this discussion have stipulated that the IRS refused to release the document. This seems to be as difficult for you as it was for Mr. Bird, who has folded. Do you think that by continuing to beat this dead horse, you will manage to distract from the real issue? If so, allow me to assure you that you have engaged the wrong person for any such effort, and allow me to redirect your erratic attention to the issue at hand: His commentary was on Fredric Rice’s "explanation" about why the Treasury Department is hiding the information.

Now perhaps we can focus on your "explanation" for the refusal, and not wander back needlessly to yet another expression of the fact of the refusal. And now I believe we are about to be treated to a retrograde restatement of your "explanation" in which you retreat from the specific to the general: Because the document is embarrassing to the IRS and the U. S. Treasury and would result in endless demands for criminal prosecutions to be instigated against the crooks investigated and named in the ROI.

Yes, I see that you have, indeed, abandoned and orphaned your earlier unsupported allegations of blackmail, extortion, and coy hints of rumored pedophaelia, and opted for a more euphemistic and hazy statement that the document is "embarrassing" in non-specific ways to the IRS and the U. S. Treasury. I’m heartened to see that you are able to recognize how fatally flawed your earlier position was and that you now exhibit the good sense to retreat from it. You may even have retreated far enough to reach ground on which we can agree. I don’t doubt that the document is, indeed, embarrassing to the IRS and the U. S. Treasury Department, yet that still does not answer why it would be. It would also result in endless questions about why indictments have not been handed down over the past nine years.  No, make that 11 years.

Perhaps it would. But these are the unsupported claims you earlier made: Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it.

Then, in a separate message in this thread, you claimed: The standard rumor is that that Scientology enterprise provided video tapes or photographs of the IRC [sic: IRS] Commissioner molesting children

Regarding your scandalous, sensationalistic, and unsupported claims, I said: As CL quite correctly pointed out, Mr. Rice did not provide "a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant."

To which you have replied: I guess you’ve not been paying attention.

I guess I have now thoroughly disabused you of that hope-filled fantasy, haven’t I, Mr. Rice? I’ve been paying very close attention indeed. There is no "standard rumor," as you falsely claimed, is there, Mr. Rice? You are a liar, aren’t you? You made that up out of whole cloth in desperation, asserting the false existence of a "standard rumor" in order to pretend some foundation for your vapid claims of "blackmail and extortion," didn’t you? There is no evidence whatsoever that "Scientology" blackmailed and extorted Commissioner Goldberg, is there? If there is, why haven’t you presented or cited any such evidence? You have not, nor has anyone else, so there is no point in pretending that you have. So in support of your "position," that being that the IRS and its Commissioner were at all relevant times "victims" of "Scientology," there is a perfect vacuum of evidence or documentation. There is only your false claim of a "standard rumor," without so much as a cited source for this alleged "standard rumor." That is easily explained: you made it up. Now let us briefly review, in contrast, what lies in the coffers of evidence for the opposing view: that IRS was at all relevant times the causitive and controlling party. And what do we find: 1. Meade Emory, former Assistant Commissioner of IRS (the second highest position in IRS), and former Legislative Attorney for the Joint Committee on Taxation, being the founder of the richest and most powerful Scientology corporation, Church of Spiritual Technology (CST, which was the primary beneficiary of the Closing Agreement), as well as being the architect of the probate and corporate restructuring that made that possible. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/founder.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1970-01-01emoryjointtaxc… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1975-01-01emoryasstcommi… 2. An IRS order in the Closing Agreement transferring the intellectual property of Scientology from "Author’s Family Trust-B" to the Emory-created corporation, CST. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1993-10-01closingagrmt.h… 3. Three non-Scientolgist tax and probate attorneys appointed to lifetime positions as the Special Directors of CST, with virtually unlimited powers over the control of the corporation, and, by virtue of CST’s custody and control of the intellectual property, over all of Scientology. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/contents/howirsruns.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-06-07cstbylaws.html… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-06-07cstbylaws.html… 4. A "Tax Compliance Manual" on which all Scientology organizations are now managed, and "Tax Compliance Sections" in every Scientology organization in the world enforcing compliance to IRS codes on all Scientology public and staff. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/prf03churchstaff.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/prf04tcm1seaorg.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/prf05tcm2tcs.html 5. A fraudulent version of "Scientology" called "the Scientology religion," promoted at taxpayer expense by IRS, in a booklet sent out to world governments by IRS called "A Description of the Scientology Religion," and consisting of CST-owned and IRS-approved altered "versions" of former Hubbard works. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/scientologyreligion.html That is by no means a complete review. But I believe it is sufficient to expose your mewling, dishonest, and wholly unsupported fiction about "blackmail and extortion" of IRS and its then-Commissioner in these matters for the bag of wind that it is. I guess you haven’t been paying attention. Cambridge

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Uh….excuse me please. Well, you’re in luck: I just got back from an all-soccer weekend (well, not ~all~ soccer; there ~were~ the kegs of draft beer and the barbecued ribs), and I am so goddamned jazzed about the US team making it this far that I can probably excuse almost anything right now. Maybe even you. Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!

You mean you’ve been on course all weekend. How many student points did you get? You seem so knowledgable about everything that I thought you might be able to answer a simple question. Aw, shucks. You know what a sucker I am for smarmy sarcastic flattery, don’t you.

No need to be that way with me. I’m just a pipsqueak in this vast world of powerful critics that post here. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I looked at the website that you posted below, you know that sc-irs site, and I saw this on there: This is not an official site of either the Church of Spiritual Technology, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Treasury Department, Scientology, or any Scientology organization, and is not approved or sanctioned by any of them. This is a public service educational news and information site about the strange relationships between the corporation known as Church of Spiritual Technology (doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the United States government. All information on site may be freely used for non-commercial purposes. Now I was wondering why I was able to get to this "public information" site without any problem, but I was not able top get to the OCA survey site that Andrew Barbham created? HTF would I know? WTF is Andrew Barbham? See: I’m ~not~ knowledgeable about everything, just things that matter.

Try Google Group search in A.R.S. "Andrew Barnham" OCA. Pull up the thread. Then try to access the site with the OCA survey. Why is the OCA survey site considered to have copyrighted material, Hmmmmm. Now, let me stroke my goatee here for a minute… I know! I know! Because the OCA test is copyrighted material solely owned by… (Are you feverishly guessing? Do I have you clutching the edge of your chair? Are you hoping hoping hoping that it’s owned by RTC? Are you ~praying~ that the little lawn ornament Davey Dumbass Miscavige is somehow behind it so your favorite myths and superstitions can finally be sanctified?)

Actually I have no idea who owns the copyright for the OCA. I would guess that if it is owned by somebody other than its creator, then the rights were transfered. Irregardless the OCA has no worth other than use as a tool to make a person feel worthless and "in need of improvement". But then again, you know all about the OCA because you take one before and after every major auditing service you buy. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Nope: the OCA test is solely owned by the corporation created by former Assistant Commissioner of IRS Meade Emory…

[cloture the filibuster i.e. snip the cr*p] Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!

I don’t even have a team on the field. You worked hard for that score. See, this is like shooting ducks in a barrel now isn’t it?

I thought the saying was "’fish’ in a barrel". For ducks, isn’t it "’ducks’ on a pond"? And isn’t it amazing that the COMPLETE answer to your question is right there on that site you are whining about "being able" to access. Maybe I’m not going to be able to excuse you after all. but yet this so called public site that you offered up does not seem to have any restrictions? That ~I~ offered up? BZZZZZZZZZZTT! No, jackass, I was notified about it here in a.r.s. like the rest of the world, and have since been directing people there for accurate, documented information, since that is what ~I~ find on the site. YMMV.

Please direct me to the thread where you were notified. I want to see exactly WHO notified you. What kind of restrictions would you like to see put on accurate, documented information, little Nazi boy?

There is really no need for the "colorful metaphor". Why does the Co$ seem to not have any problems with this site? WTF is the "Co$," moron? That’s probably the root of your problem, is that you spend sleepless nights fretting about THINGS THAT DON’T FUCKING EXIST, you stupid turd.

LOL CST, on the other hand, I imagine has MAJOR "problems with this site," but as I read it, there’s not a ~fucking~ thing they can do about it. Last I heard, there is at least a little bit left of the Constitution.

So a little site like Andrew Barnham’s OCA survey can get blocked on the internet, but the CST can’t do a thing about the site that you are trying to send people to. Excuse me for being so incredulous. Do you understand what I am getting at here? No. I don’t have a fucking clue what you are "getting at here." I don’t see any copyright violations on that site. Do you? Then cite them.

Actually I’d like to see Andrew Barnham’s site and see if I can cite any copyright violations there. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And if you find them (which you won’t) let’s see if CST has the fucking balls to go after them and open themselves up to possible discovery for all of these phantom documents (referenced on that site) that CST principals have laid claim to: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1979-12-15-2intervivos.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1981-10-01estateplan.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-1cstoption.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-2atproposed.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-4markspropose… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-8businessmgmt… Or if they want to open the door to discovery on all the times that Sherman Lenske arranged for "out-of-communication" Mr. "L. Ron Hubbard" to pop up like a fucking Whack-A-Gopher to sign shit, as is described here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/washubbard.html Or if they want to open the door to discovery on the Treasury Department personnel who were in bed with Meade Emory and Sherman Lenske: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/treasdept.html Oh, yeah! I just ~bet~ they want to pick that fight and open those doors to what is referenced on that site. I’ll tell you what: if they do, I would trade tickets to a soccer World Cup final that included the US team to have a seat in THAT courtroom. I would trade fucking SUPER BOWL tickets.

I remember a magazine that some offshoot of the Co$ once put out years ago, but I don’t remember the name of it. I do remember one month the cover had a picture of John Lennon on it and there was some kind of conspiracy theory in the mag about the FBI or pyschs trying to get John Lennon murdered. Did you write for that mag? Now that I have raised this question I am even more curious as to what your answer will be. You got it, pal. Please do not hesitate to answer. RD00 Did I seem hesitant to you?

All right, you’re forgiven for having to spend time in the course room over the weekend. Did you end up in Qual at all? http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!

Like I said I don’t even have a team on the field. But I say "Hey man, nice shot" CL

I pity what you are going to go through when the REAL heavy hitters here take a shot at YOU. RD00

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On 16 Jun 2002 in On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The document they’re refusing to distribute is an ROI which has always been a series of public documents available upon polite request leave alone upon formal FOIA requests.  This one document is an exception and the IRS refuses to release it. Yes, well, that also goes only to the fact that the IRS refuses to release it, doesn’t it, and not to the reason why. Perhaps you, also, overlooked the operative word, "why."

You might try to explain your pet theory — if you have one — as to why the IRS continues to deny the release of this public document.  Given the well documented history of the Scientology criminal enterprise, pedophile blackmail and extortion fits perfectly.  If you have another explanation, let’s hear it. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ "You can lie about ICR all you want."

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I received another letter from the U. S. Treasury which I’ll reproduce below. Previous requests for the investigative report created by the U. S. Inspector General for Tax Administration office of the U. S. Treasury which delved into the racketeering activities which took place in and around 1991 which resulted in the totally unwarranted 1993 tax exemption status of the Scientology criminal enterprise have resulted in the IRS and U. S. Treasury claiming that the document being requested was exempt from distribution due to the information being a matter of "national security." Indeed, the IRS whistleblower which leaked the criminal "closing agreement to the Wall Street Journal which published the document became the subject of an internal lynch mob who, it is believed, never found the correct neck to stretch.  And two moths ago we read a Judicial opinion that the IRS needs to be sued to leverage out full disclosure of what the Judge called a blatant criminal act. I filed a FOIA request dated August of 2001 for the document, identified it by its ROI number, specifically described the document and the number of pages as well as its publication date.  After a considerable amount of time I received a letter claiming the document couldn’t be located. After additional time I received confirmation that the document was found with a request that I wait longer.  Over time I received a number of letters about my FOIA including one which was sent from Washington, some how wound up in Baltimore, got opened, resealed with tape, and then sent to me in California. During this time I telephoned the FOIA fulfillment offices a number of times and kept getting the run-around being told that the FOIA request was being bounced between various internal departments finally winding up in "exempt organizations." Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. Now — with this letter — we find that the claim of "national security" has been dropped and now it’s a blatant, unexplained "exempt" from FIUA recall.  And the excuse?  The criminal enterprise which racketeered its way into tax exemption status is a tax exempted organization and as such the documents which cover the racketeering which resulted in that tax exemption status is exempt from public dissemination. Sweet bit of circular fraud, huh?

If you do some investigation via SEC filings you will find Michael Bayback (OT 8), in close liason with many other billion dollar players such as Lal Gondi (you can search these names on google and the SEC from there) are heavily connected thoughout government, particularly in Canada, california and Nevada…gold and silver mining interests world wide, with the attendant local govt corruption,  and a vast range of fraudulent gold stock manipulations.   At this point, blackmail while I am sure is still a major issue, the money alone, the kickbacks, bribes and sweetheart deals such as we saw in Zwickau Germany is doing the trick for the cult. The cult of scientology has America completely by the balls imho… and the grip is getting tigher each day.  After looking at this mess for a while now, it seems that it will be difficult or impossible to stop.. the deals are difuse, many apparently between friends unrecorded (as with slatkin)… and via shell corporations.   Tagging any of these billion dollar players when they can afford an army of the best attorneys… is not going to work. Even congressional action at this point is going to be difficult.  Thats as of June 2002… by 2005… I think it will be an even less encouraging picture. I thought if the issue had been correctly addressed when I first brought it up in 1995 that it could have been stopped.  Recent review has indicated that the mess was big even by the mid 80’s with Bayback.  Due to the nature of the operation, the espionage, etc.  It may have been unstoppable even then. Lisa’s death and other such issues are merely smoke screens for this cult… imho they could give a rats ass about the orgs or the public opinion now…its the stock, commodities fraud and espionage thats worth billions a year to them now….and they can continue to expand that at warp speed with the current players… they dont need, maybe they dont even want any new raw meat into the orgs. Phil Scott P – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –=- Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Washington, D. C.  20224 Fredric L. Rice             Person to contact                            Barry Windheim (I. D. # 50-07976)                            Telephone Number:                            (202) 622-4264                            Refer Reply to:                            XX-2002-XXXX BW                            [Stamp Jun  7 2002] Dear Mr. Riced:    This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.    Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.  If you have any further questions, please contact the person listed above.        Sincerely,        [Signed Maureen Sapero]        Marueen Sapero        Acting Manager, HQ Disclosure Office        Badge Number: 50-06543 Enclosure Notice 393 — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The subject of CL’s commentary, But you **are** CL, Randy.

Dave, I ~love~ being part of the Randy McDonald urban legend, but you obviously didn’t get this week’s ARSCC CL Bulletin. I have it on unimpeachable authority that this week I am Pat Broeker. Also the Librarian,

I so hope you don’t fantasize about me in a tube top. It is an ugly, ugly, thought. Hideous. It gives me nightmares. Nigel,

I’m Nigel now?! Hey, ~this~ is news! I like that! And apparently, since you are responding to a Cambridge post, he’s also now part of the urban legend, is that correct? I’m trying to mark my scorecard. and various other of your MPD identities or Scientology valences.

Well, I’m relieved to hear that it’s all my problem, and not merely the result of your own paranoid delusions. For a moment I was beginning to worry about you. But now you’ve put my mind at ease. I do not think you-all (or is it you-both)

Do you mean me as Randy McDonald ~and~ me as Pat Broeker? You left out DM. I’m also part of the DM urban legend, and I will NOT have that taken away from me. I am the ultimate body thetan of a.r.s., having become attached to ALL of these urban legends, so quit trying to sell me short–so to speak. Veritas Loons

Oh, that’s right! I’m Veritas, too! I forgot. And wasn’t I–or at least wasn’t Randy McDonald, or wgert’s pig, or somebody–the Public Research Foundation, too? And I don’t know how you could possibly overlook Ace of Clubs. I feel almost certain that I must have been part of that urban legend also at some point. I think you need to get YOUR scorcard up to date, Dave. You’re slacking. I’m an entire industry. I’m a one-man army. I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t diminish my legend. make much sense

You mean like you? in rubbshing Fred as you have tried to.

I wouldn’t rubbshing Fred on a salary, and I also would not promote him to rubbish. It would reflect badly on rubbish. If you have another explanation WHY the request was rejected — I don’t think it is so obviously true that Fred is a fool for even considering different possibilities — then please give it.

You fucking loon. That was the WHOLE POINT of my original post in THIS THREAD that YOU were RESPONDING to, you brain-dead, dole-draining, do-nothing, knee-jerk, lithium-sodden, semi-literate, half-baked, pea-brained, Armstrong-worshipping poster boy for Zippy the Pinhead cartoons! ~JESUS~, what a fucking lunatic! HERE is what ~YOU~ SNIPPED from my ORIGINAL POST, while also removing the reference to it, jerk: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Then, after you have visited his surreal fantasy world, if you want to see the actual, real-world, thoroughly documented ~truth~ of why the Treasury Department is hiding the information, go here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ Be sure to click on their "Complaint Dept." link in the red navigation bar to fully enjoy the irony of the site, but then come back and go to their chronological "Documents" index, here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html There you will find over NINETY (90–although their page says "60") real, tangible, verifiable documents, contracts, corporate papers, court rulings, Copyright and Trademark Office records, and media reports telling the ~real~ reason why the Treasury Department is hiding facts from the American people about IRS’s relationship with Scientology, particularly with the senior corporation in Scientology: the "Church of Spiritual Technology."

And HERE is the message ID you removed: There. Did you GET it this time, bonehead? Or will I have to post it again? Have you READ all the documents on that site? Yes or no? Have you ~studied~ the evidence? Yes or no? YES, or NO? No? Then shut the ~FUCK~ up until you have, because until you do you have NO STANDING to open your stupid fucking uninformed mouth, except to prove conclusively how ~FUCKING~ ignorant you are of the facts. Of course that would provide a complete accounting for why you buy into the insane ranting delusions of a nut case like Fredric Rice, though, wouldn’t it? Because I can GUARANTEE you that ~that~ raving, drooling psycho hasn’t bothered to study the facts and evidence presented there, either. If possible without shrieking or block capitals.

~FUCK~ you. I can’t POST without BLOCK CAPITALS, you fucking moron: that’s how my NAME is spelled: CL The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag whose excuse for an "editor"–Rod Keller–uses extreme socio-political censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it. Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST–doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller "sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth. "In Wollersheim’s case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."                                   –Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPQwPSNAKsx0v8qcvEQKjEACfWLt6IVV2guEKWWg3mRU9ulO6pF0AoIxI B8Z7F56lbOQjkgHqSO0Wuq5h =sLzl —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The subject of CL’s commentary,

 But you **are** CL, Randy.  Also the Librarian, Nigel, and various  other of your MPD identities or Scientology valences.  I do not  think you-all (or is it you-both) Veritas Loons make much sense  in rubbshing Fred as you have tried to. If you have another  explanation WHY the request was rejected — I don’t think it is  so obviously true that Fred is a fool for even considering  different possibilities — then please give it. If possible  without shrieking or block capitals. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -as I read it, and the only way it possibly can be read using the Queen’s or any other English, is not questioning the fact that the Treasury Department is hiding information, which is the only thing the letter itself is pertinent to. His commentary was on Fredric Rice’s "explanation" about why the Treasury Department is hiding the information. The operative word, which in your twitching paroxysm you apparently overlooked, is "why." That was what Mr. Rice’s "explanation" addressed, which "explanation" you elected to excise: Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. As CL quite correctly pointed out, Mr. Rice did not provide "a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant." The "nut rant" being referred to is the above paragraph. Did you find evidence to support the above "explanation" in the IRS letter itself? If so, was the evidence in secret code that only you and Mr. Rice can decrypt? Or do you stipulate that Mr. Rice has been remote viewing the inner workings at 1111 Constitution Avenue? Perhaps he has planted a bug in one of the conference rooms of the Internal Revenue Service, or do I have that confused with someone else? If you had a name and address (what is your bane and address, Randy?) CL seems to be your bane, as evidenced by your lathered and resentful Freudian slip. which you could disclose even privately, then he could send you a paper copy and a letter with his physical signature on. I presume you are referring to Randy McDonald and implying, yet again, with an absence of foundation second only to Mr Rice’s, that CL and McDonald are one and the same. If you want to send something to Randy McDonald, or think Fredric Rice ought to, why not just go to the Operation Clambake pages hosting "The McDonald Papers" and get his address: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7301/14-960307HC.html It’s right at the bottom of the page along with his phone number. It isn’t difficult at all to find. Why do you pretend that there is some mystery to it when there isn’t any mystery to it at all? Are you that starved for intrigue? Then Mr. Rice can send Mr. McDonald an unsolicited piece of mail that is wholly irrelevant to anything, as Mr. Henson seems absolutely determined to do in the Lisa McPherson case. And the endless balmy conflagration of folly that is a.r.s. can rage on unabated like a Colorado wildfire. Cambridge

–  FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD,  AND BUGGER THE DWARF  HE RODE IN ON!!  8====3  (O 0)    GROETEN — PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL   no real OT has           |n|    (COMMANDER,  FIFTH INVADER FORCE)   ever existed  STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html            

Response:

By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. That’s because delusions are private, internalized mental constructs. So naturally they have no basis or foundation in the real world.

Er, your take on the events don’t include flying saucers, does it? — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

   Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed. The "appeal" consists of writing another letter to the same agency and saying "oh, please?"  These people are simply not going to make this public document public until a Judge orders them to – and even then it’ll take the Supreme Court to order it and even then the IRS will balk.

That’s pretty much the case.  However, your case is not ripe for judicial review until you have exhausted all administrative appeals. ptsc

Response:

On 14 Jun 2002 in – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this.

Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The subject of CL’s commentary, as I read it, and the only way it possibly can be read using the Queen’s or any other English, is not questioning the fact that the Treasury Department is hiding information, which is the only thing the letter itself is pertinent to. His commentary was on Fredric Rice’s "explanation" about why the Treasury Department is hiding the information. The operative word, which in your twitching paroxysm you apparently overlooked, is "why." That was what Mr. Rice’s "explanation" addressed, which "explanation" you elected to excise: Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it.

As CL quite correctly pointed out, Mr. Rice did not provide "a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant." The "nut rant" being referred to is the above paragraph. Did you find evidence to support the above "explanation" in the IRS letter itself? If so, was the evidence in secret code that only you and Mr. Rice can decrypt? Or do you stipulate that Mr. Rice has been remote viewing the inner workings at 1111 Constitution Avenue? Perhaps he has planted a bug in one of the conference rooms of the Internal Revenue Service, or do I have that confused with someone else? If you had a name and address (what is your bane and address, Randy?)

CL seems to be your bane, as evidenced by your lathered and resentful Freudian slip. which you could disclose even privately, then he could send you a paper copy and a letter with his physical signature on.

I presume you are referring to Randy McDonald and implying, yet again, with an absence of foundation second only to Mr Rice’s, that CL and McDonald are one and the same. If you want to send something to Randy McDonald, or think Fredric Rice ought to, why not just go to the Operation Clambake pages hosting "The McDonald Papers" and get his address: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7301/14-960307HC.html It’s right at the bottom of the page along with his phone number. It isn’t difficult at all to find. Why do you pretend that there is some mystery to it when there isn’t any mystery to it at all? Are you that starved for intrigue? Then Mr. Rice can send Mr. McDonald an unsolicited piece of mail that is wholly irrelevant to anything, as Mr. Henson seems absolutely determined to do in the Lisa McPherson case. And the endless balmy conflagration of folly that is a.r.s. can rage on unabated like a Colorado wildfire. Cambridge

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant.

 Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You  are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this.  If you had a name and address (what is your bane and address, Randy?)  which you could disclose even privately, then he could send you a  paper copy and a letter with his physical signature on. – —  FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD,  AND BUGGER THE DWARF  HE RODE IN ON!!  8====3  (O 0)    GROETEN — PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL   no real OT has           |n|    (COMMANDER,  FIFTH INVADER FORCE)   ever existed  STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html             —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBPQpY/DjC8JjHfXGTEQKVGACg8e4D8ko8DjECzWmjHZ0sa+D4CIEAoPZb DVL7VnShsJIgcdUJditRQeZw =kpVp —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

fr Sweet bit of circular fraud, huh? If you do some investigation via SEC filings you will find Michael Bayback (OT 8), in close liason with many other billion dollar players such as Lal Gondi (you can search these names on google and the SEC from there) are heavily connected thoughout government, particularly in Canada, california and Nevada…gold and silver mining interests world wide, with the attendant local govt corruption,  and a vast range of fraudulent gold stock manipulations.   At this point, blackmail while I am sure is still a major issue, the money alone, the kickbacks, bribes and sweetheart deals such as we saw in Zwickau Germany is doing the trick for the cult.

It seems it’s an impossible task for citizens to leverage out of the IRS and U. S. Treasury any information about the events and any information about the criminal investigation which followed. Some of the people who were there at the time are still there and unwilling to talk about what they know, what they saw, and what the scuttlebutt was around their little domains.  I talked with a number of people and was informed that people know about all of the internal corruption, are aware of this incident to some extent.  Another top down public clensing which would result from the disclosure of this document would reach the people in the trenches since there would be another lynch mob conveined to find the people who talked to me about what little they know about it.  I also got the feeling that the people who answer the phones have been specifically instructed not to discuss such issues with callers even when that’s their designated job description. The standard rumor is that that Scientology enterprise provided video tapes or photographs of the IRC Commissioner molesting children but then I certainly never asked and certainly never even remotely mentioned what seems to be the common rumor. Even congressional action at this point is going to be difficult.  Thats as of June 2002… by 2005… I think it will be an even less encouraging picture.

All Congress needs to do is okay the Federal funding.  The FBI can take it from there, interdepartimentally work with the BATF, and take Miscaviage et al. out of the organized crime business once and for all.  The political ramifications of cleaning house would reach all the way to our unelected "President" who would want to link the Scientology criminal enterprise to vague "terrorists" to get the public on his side.  And that would muddy the water since the criminal enterprise can be taken out standing on its own merits. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

   Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.

The "appeal" consists of writing another letter to the same agency and saying "oh, please?"  These people are simply not going to make this public document public until a Judge orders them to – and even then it’ll take the Supreme Court to order it and even then the IRS will balk. Heavily armed IRS people conducted a lynch mob and went looking for the people who leaked the secret "closing agreement" to the Wall Street Journal, brandishing their firearms in a threatening way — and when an FBI officer who witnessed the incident reported it back to his supervisory controls, they swallowed the hit and the incident went no further. With crimes like that being conducted to cover up the billion dollar fraud that was enacted against the American public, failing to disclose the public document defying the Freedom of Information Act is peanuts. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

Xenu allowed ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com to write:    This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103. Sounds like a crock of shit to me. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode26&STEMMER=en&WOR… An investigative report is not "confidential return information," it’s a fucking investigative report.

Thanks, I’ll check the URL however I’ve finally got someone with a backbone to hold my hand through this.  I was going to give it up like I gave up the FDA FOIA request I was lied to about (the FDA claimed they knew nothing even after I sent them a newspaper article and _a_frocking_photograph_ of their own people conducting the raid I was asking about.) There’s a number of organizations out there on the Internet which have a history of conducting successful lawuits against the IRS for disclosure of FOIAs that have been previously denied.  None of the ones I looked at (when time permits) have had anything remotely as criminal as this one on their dinner plate, though.  But that’s the next step and I won’t be dropping this one. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

There you will find over NINETY (90–although their page says "60") real, tangible, verifiable documents, contracts, corporate papers, court rulings, Copyright and Trademark Office records, and media reports telling the ~real~ reason why the Treasury Department is hiding facts from the American people about IRS’s relationship with Scientology, particularly with the senior corporation in Scientology: the "Church of Spiritual Technology."

I’m lazy. Could you summarize it for us in a paragraph? And then summarize the differences between your "actual, real-world, thoroughly documented truth"-ful explanation, and Mr. Rice’s "balmy, feverish," "surreal fantasy" one? Thanks! — LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT ASK THEM ABOUT XENU Mike O’Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 There you will find over NINETY (90–although their page says "60") real, tangible, verifiable documents, contracts, corporate papers, court rulings, Copyright and Trademark Office records, and media reports telling the ~real~ reason why the Treasury Department is hiding facts from the American people about IRS’s relationship with Scientology, particularly with the senior corporation in Scientology: the "Church of Spiritual Technology." I’m lazy. Could you summarize it for us in a paragraph?

No. Here, quoted from the site: "It’s not a simple story. There is no ‘TV Guide’ or ‘Reader’s Digest’ version. If you think of Watergate, you’ll begin to get some idea of the scope of the conspiracy and cover-up." Of course you are ~so~ lazy–or snide, or comprehension challenged–that you even snipped this from my message: Also on that site are several press releases that summarize the most important facts: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/newsroomindex.html

So if you’re too lazy to even read the six summarizing press releases, godspeed. And then summarize the differences between your "actual, real-world, thoroughly documented truth"-ful explanation, and Mr. Rice’s "balmy, feverish," "surreal fantasy" one?

No. I think you’ll be better off with the balmy, feverish, surreal fantasy one. It seems more tailored to your sloth. Thanks!

Always glad to help. CL The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag whose excuse for an "editor"–Rod Keller–uses extreme socio-political censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it. Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST–doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller "sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth. "In Wollersheim’s case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."                                   –Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPQpd0tAKsx0v8qcvEQL2yQCgrug4w6TAQ7gYa0N2DqAT1i7u4MwAoJYX 9FPN2JDXaqx4pxYkvxQtji1c =sjjo —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. That’s because delusions are private, internalized mental constructs. So naturally they have no basis or foundation in the real world. Then, after you have visited his surreal fantasy world, if you want to see the actual, real-world, thoroughly documented ~truth~ of why the Treasury Department is hiding the information, go here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ Be sure to click on their "Complaint Dept." link in the red navigation bar to fully enjoy the irony of the site, but then come back and go to their chronological "Documents" index, here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html There you will find over NINETY (90–although their page says "60") real, tangible, verifiable documents, contracts, corporate papers, court rulings, Copyright and Trademark Office records, and media reports telling the ~real~ reason why the Treasury Department is hiding facts from the American people about IRS’s relationship with Scientology, particularly with the senior corporation in Scientology: the "Church of Spiritual Technology." But first, by all means, read the unsupported ravings of a loon: Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.true-crime,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy I received another letter from the U. S. Treasury which I’ll reproduce below. Previous requests for the investigative report created by the U. S. Inspector General for Tax Administration office of the U. S. Treasury which delved into the racketeering activities which took place in and around 1991 which resulted in the totally unwarranted 1993 tax exemption status of the Scientology criminal enterprise have resulted in the IRS and U. S. Treasury claiming that the document being requested was exempt from distribution due to the information being a matter of "national security." Indeed, the IRS whistleblower which leaked the criminal "closing agreement to the Wall Street Journal which published the document became the subject of an internal lynch mob who, it is believed, never found the correct neck to stretch.  And two moths ago we read a Judicial opinion that the IRS needs to be sued to leverage out full disclosure of what the Judge called a blatant criminal act. I filed a FOIA request dated August of 2001 for the document, identified it by its ROI number, specifically described the document and the number of pages as well as its publication date.  After a considerable amount of time I received a letter claiming the document couldn’t be located. After additional time I received confirmation that the document was found with a request that I wait longer.  Over time I received a number of letters about my FOIA including one which was sent from Washington, some how wound up in Baltimore, got opened, resealed with tape, and then sent to me in California. During this time I telephoned the FOIA fulfillment offices a number of times and kept getting the run-around being told that the FOIA request was being bounced between various internal departments finally winding up in "exempt organizations." Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. Now — with this letter — we find that the claim of "national security" has been dropped and now it’s a blatant, unexplained "exempt" from FIUA recall.  And the excuse?  The criminal enterprise which racketeered its way into tax exemption status is a tax exempted organization and as such the documents which cover the racketeering which resulted in that tax exemption status is exempt from public dissemination. Sweet bit of circular fraud, huh? – -=- Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Washington, D. C.  20224 Fredric L. Rice             Person to contact                             Barry Windheim (I. D. # 50-07976)                             Telephone Number:                             (202) 622-4264                             Refer Reply to:                             XX-2002-XXXX BW                             [Stamp Jun  7 2002] Dear Mr. Riced:     This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.     Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.  If you have any further questions, please contact the person listed above.         Sincerely,         [Signed Maureen Sapero]         Marueen Sapero         Acting Manager, HQ Disclosure Office         Badge Number: 50-06543 Enclosure Notice 393 I hope you enjoyed the paranoid ravings of Fredric Rice that accompanied this blatant slap in the face by the Treasury Department. Now learn the facts behind the cover-up: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/index.html Also on that site are several press releases that summarize the most important facts: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/newsroomindex.html Fortunately, people have done real, honest, responsible investigative reporting on this issue, and backed up their findings with the evidence, so no one has to rely on the pitiable, unsupported Rice ravings. CL The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag whose excuse for an "editor"–Rod Keller–uses extreme socio-political censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it. Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST–doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller "sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth. "In Wollersheim’s case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."                                   –Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPQokvdAKsx0v8qcvEQLl/ACfeGOdMKXG0yzJGWy8jKLEq+A8JTYAn2Vr qwMXL/Jnl0Q5koRWVUmkIn6a =ur+d —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Fredric L. Rice             Person to contact                            Barry Windheim (I. D. # 50-07976)                            Telephone Number:                            (202) 622-4264                            Refer Reply to:                            XX-2002-XXXX BW                            [Stamp Jun  7 2002] Dear Mr. Riced:    This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.    Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.

—  FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD,  AND BUGGER THE DWARF  HE RODE IN ON!!  8====3  (O 0)    GROETEN — PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL   no real OT has           |n|    (COMMANDER,  FIFTH INVADER FORCE)   ever existed  STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html            

Response:

   This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.

Sounds like a crock of shit to me. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode26&STEMMER=en&WOR… An investigative report is not "confidential return information," it’s a fucking investigative report. ptsc

Response:

I received another letter from the U. S. Treasury which I’ll reproduce below. Previous requests for the investigative report created by the U. S. Inspector General for Tax Administration office of the U. S. Treasury which delved into the racketeering activities which took place in and around 1991 which resulted in the totally unwarranted 1993 tax exemption status of the Scientology criminal enterprise have resulted in the IRS and U. S. Treasury claiming that the document being requested was exempt from distribution due to the information being a matter of "national security." Indeed, the IRS whistleblower which leaked the criminal "closing agreement to the Wall Street Journal which published the document became the subject of an internal lynch mob who, it is believed, never found the correct neck to stretch.  And two moths ago we read a Judicial opinion that the IRS needs to be sued to leverage out full disclosure of what the Judge called a blatant criminal act. I filed a FOIA request dated August of 2001 for the document, identified it by its ROI number, specifically described the document and the number of pages as well as its publication date.  After a considerable amount of time I received a letter claiming the document couldn’t be located. After additional time I received confirmation that the document was found with a request that I wait longer.  Over time I received a number of letters about my FOIA including one which was sent from Washington, some how wound up in Baltimore, got opened, resealed with tape, and then sent to me in California. During this time I telephoned the FOIA fulfillment offices a number of times and kept getting the run-around being told that the FOIA request was being bounced between various internal departments finally winding up in "exempt organizations." Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. Now — with this letter — we find that the claim of "national security" has been dropped and now it’s a blatant, unexplained "exempt" from FIUA recall.  And the excuse?  The criminal enterprise which racketeered its way into tax exemption status is a tax exempted organization and as such the documents which cover the racketeering which resulted in that tax exemption status is exempt from public dissemination. Sweet bit of circular fraud, huh? -=- Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Washington, D. C.  20224 Fredric L. Rice             Person to contact                             Barry Windheim (I. D. # 50-07976)                             Telephone Number:                             (202) 622-4264                             Refer Reply to:                             XX-2002-XXXX BW                             [Stamp Jun  7 2002] Dear Mr. Riced:     This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.     Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.  If you have any further questions, please contact the person listed above.         Sincerely,         [Signed Maureen Sapero]         Marueen Sapero         Acting Manager, HQ Disclosure Office         Badge Number: 50-06543 Enclosure Notice 393 — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

Question:

I eat, live, and breath aviation.

Wow — you’ve described me to a "T" — except you get paid to do it! Got any openings???  :) — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

Response:

One that I know of. We’ve been under a total hiring freeze for a couple of years now.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I eat, live, and breath aviation. Wow — you’ve described me to a "T" — except you get paid to do it! Got any openings???  :) — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

Response:

Wow, imagine — a place that ISN’T hiring? You’ve got to work for the only organization in the country that isn’t constantly hunting for warm bodies to fill open slots!    As an employer, I envy your position. Must be the good benefits? — Jay

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One that I know of. We’ve been under a total hiring freeze for a couple of years now. I eat, live, and breath aviation. Wow — you’ve described me to a "T" — except you get paid to do it! Got any openings???  :) — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

Response:

Jay, If you were being compensated to fly the brochures from A to B and simply dropping off the brochures then someone (and we know who that someone is, don’t we <g) might view that kind of operation as being a cargo flight which should be operated under FAR 135. In other words, the compensation you’re receiving is for flying the airplane. No different than FedEx or UPS delivering packages. On the other hand if you are being compensated to stock the displays and you use your airplane is used to get to those displays then it would probably be viewed as being under 61.113. Again, all these kinds of scenarios are like snowflakes, no two being alike. But,  in the scenario you described earlier I don’t think anyone would view that as being a for hire operation. If you were to come into my office and ask me that question that is the answer I would give you. Our lawyers may view differently but then if no one asks them….well,……<g As to the "headache" the answer is no I don’t get a headache at the end of the day. Quite the contrary. I thoroughly enjoy helping out anybody who seeks aviation information or advice. It goes with the territory and is a part of my job. I eat, live, and breath aviation. It’s my job. Best Rick Cremer FAA Aviation Safety Inspector ATP, DC-9/MD-80/88/90 A&P Mechanic Flight Instructor Ground Instructor Aircraft Dispatcher Air Traffic Controller

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks for your interpretation of a really fuzzy situation. I’m not sure I understand the difference between my flying into an airport, and stocking the display rack with brochures (Private certificate OK), versus my flying into an airport, dropping off the brochures, and having the FBO stock the display rack (Commercial ticket required) — but, hey, I’m not a lawyer. I’ll bet you go home with a headache after trying to deal with this stuff all day! Thanks again, — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 It would seem to me that, as in the other case, you too would fall under the provisions of 61.113(b). From what you’ve told me you are using the airplane as a means of transportation to products to a place that you can then use the product in pursuit of your enterprise. That is, you’re being compensated to stock the display rack with the brochures and the fact that you happen to use your airplane to get to the display rack is incidental to the issue. On the other hand if you were being compensated to deliver the brochures and then someone else was picking them up and stocking the display rack then I would say that you would need a Commercial certificate. Of course that’s my opinion. For an iron clad answer I would have to send you to the FAA’s Chief Counsel’s office (the lawyers) for a legal interpretation but, geeez,  I hate to do that. <g Perhaps  "don’t ask, don’t tell" is a good way to go. Best Hey Rick: Good to hear from an FAA expert — these newsgroups get pretty cluttered up with hearsay and opinions! Got a situation for you:  I own a periodical (primarily newspapers) distribution company.   I have been in contact with a local entrepreneur who currently distributes tourist-type information (brochures, mostly) to most of the airports in Iowa.   He’s got a display rack, and charges the advertisers (casinos, hotels, rental cars, etc.) a fee to have their stuff displayed on his rack. Question:  Could I legally use our aircraft, as a Private Pilot, to drop these things off at some of the airports for him?   I get to most of the airports around here anyway, either when doing a "$100 Hamburger" run, or when I’m at them for other business reasons.   It seems like an easy thing to do, when I’m there.   (There isn’t a very strict deadline on the distribution of this stuff, as you can tell!) Since it’s "only incidental to my business", is this kosher?  My other option is to include these drops in our current trucking/delivery schemes, which works — but seems kind of silly. Your thoughts, please? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 The relevant regulation is FAR 61.113(b) (Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.) A Private Pilot nmay may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. Your scenario would appear to fit the above regulation. I.e. your compensation for operating the aircraft is incidental to the overall purpose of the flight which is to use an airplane as transportation to get from one place to another in order to cinduct whatever business you’re in. No different than renting a car. Yes, you can carry passengers while acting as PIC under these regulations. In my 32 years with the FAA I’ve never seen (or taken) an enforcement action in which this rule was a factor. A review of our Enforcement Information System indictes that there have been a few violations of this rule nationwide over the years but very very few. Enjoy! Best Rick Cremer FAA Safety Inspector Washington, D.C. (FAA Hq) The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Response:

Cameron Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work Cameron colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of Cameron the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that Cameron trip? My understanding is that if it is a trip that _you_ are taking, it’s OK to take other people along.  On the other hand, if it’s a trip that someone else is taking, you can’t offer to give that person a ride and accept reimbursement.

Further, there’s some reasonableness to the idea that you can’t offer to give that person a ride regardless of the reimbursement question. —Jim

Response:

The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip?

You’re not flying for hire or reward – go for it – have a nice trip. — Duncan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Use 91.501(d) for a guideline on what is reimbursable.

Response:

$.88 per mile http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/homepage/mtt/FTR/newftr/301-10_303…

The above appears to be what the government’s policy is towards reimbursement for private aircraft travel, not the IRS deductibility. Yeah, the company can pay the FBO bills.  You’re free and clear as long as you abide by the limitations of your certificate. Someone told me there was an allowable federal deduction for mileage when taking an aircraft for business.  It was considerably more that the per-mile allotment for cars.  Seems like it was 50-something cents per mile. Anyone hear of this or know what this deduction is?

Checking through the IRS web pages I see nothing about a standard rate for aircraft travel.  It implies that one should deduct the actual expense(s). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Jim Fisher North Alabama Cherokee 180

Response:

$.88 per mile http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/homepage/mtt/FTR/newftr/301-10_303… The above appears to be what the government’s policy is towards reimbursement for private aircraft travel, not the IRS deductibility.

The IRS has long used the same deduction rules for automobiles — I believe that they will allow exactly the same treatmwent for aircraft use.  The Govt. is most unlikely to reimburse more than they will allow as a deductible business expense. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yeah, the company can pay the FBO bills.  You’re free and clear as long as you abide by the limitations of your certificate. Someone told me there was an allowable federal deduction for mileage when taking an aircraft for business.  It was considerably more that the per-mile allotment for cars.  Seems like it was 50-something cents per mile. Anyone hear of this or know what this deduction is? Checking through the IRS web pages I see nothing about a standard rate for aircraft travel.  It implies that one should deduct the actual expense(s). — Jim Fisher North Alabama Cherokee 180

– John Stephens  (remove spaces for legal email address)

Response:

The relevant regulation is FAR 61.113(b) (Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.) A Private Pilot nmay may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. Your scenario would appear to fit the above regulation. I.e. your compensation for operating the aircraft is incidental to the overall purpose of the flight which is to use an airplane as transportation to get from one place to another in order to cinduct whatever business you’re in. No different than renting a car. Yes, you can carry passengers while acting as PIC under these regulations. In my 32 years with the FAA I’ve never seen (or taken) an enforcement action in which this rule was a factor. A review of our Enforcement Information System indictes that there have been a few violations of this rule nationwide over the years but very very few. Enjoy! Best Rick Cremer FAA Safety Inspector Washington, D.C. (FAA Hq)

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Response:

Hey Rick: Good to hear from an FAA expert — these newsgroups get pretty cluttered up with hearsay and opinions! Got a situation for you:  I own a periodical (primarily newspapers) distribution company.   I have been in contact with a local entrepreneur who currently distributes tourist-type information (brochures, mostly) to most of the airports in Iowa.   He’s got a display rack, and charges the advertisers (casinos, hotels, rental cars, etc.) a fee to have their stuff displayed on his rack. Question:  Could I legally use our aircraft, as a Private Pilot, to drop these things off at some of the airports for him?   I get to most of the airports around here anyway, either when doing a "$100 Hamburger" run, or when I’m at them for other business reasons.   It seems like an easy thing to do, when I’m there.   (There isn’t a very strict deadline on the distribution of this stuff, as you can tell!) Since it’s "only incidental to my business", is this kosher?  My other option is to include these drops in our current trucking/delivery schemes, which works — but seems kind of silly. Your thoughts, please? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The relevant regulation is FAR 61.113(b) (Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.) A Private Pilot nmay may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. Your scenario would appear to fit the above regulation. I.e. your compensation for operating the aircraft is incidental to the overall purpose of the flight which is to use an airplane as transportation to get from one place to another in order to cinduct whatever business you’re in. No different than renting a car. Yes, you can carry passengers while acting as PIC under these regulations. In my 32 years with the FAA I’ve never seen (or taken) an enforcement action in which this rule was a factor. A review of our Enforcement Information System indictes that there have been a few violations of this rule nationwide over the years but very very few. Enjoy! Best Rick Cremer FAA Safety Inspector Washington, D.C. (FAA Hq) The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Response:

Thanks for your interpretation of a really fuzzy situation. I’m not sure I understand the difference between my flying into an airport, and stocking the display rack with brochures (Private certificate OK), versus my flying into an airport, dropping off the brochures, and having the FBO stock the display rack (Commercial ticket required) — but, hey, I’m not a lawyer. I’ll bet you go home with a headache after trying to deal with this stuff all day! Thanks again, — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It would seem to me that, as in the other case, you too would fall under the provisions of 61.113(b). From what you’ve told me you are using the airplane as a means of transportation to products to a place that you can then use the product in pursuit of your enterprise. That is, you’re being compensated to stock the display rack with the brochures and the fact that you happen to use your airplane to get to the display rack is incidental to the issue. On the other hand if you were being compensated to deliver the brochures and then someone else was picking them up and stocking the display rack then I would say that you would need a Commercial certificate. Of course that’s my opinion. For an iron clad answer I would have to send you to the FAA’s Chief Counsel’s office (the lawyers) for a legal interpretation but, geeez,  I hate to do that. <g Perhaps  "don’t ask, don’t tell" is a good way to go. Best Hey Rick: Good to hear from an FAA expert — these newsgroups get pretty cluttered up with hearsay and opinions! Got a situation for you:  I own a periodical (primarily newspapers) distribution company.   I have been in contact with a local entrepreneur who currently distributes tourist-type information (brochures, mostly) to most of the airports in Iowa.   He’s got a display rack, and charges the advertisers (casinos, hotels, rental cars, etc.) a fee to have their stuff displayed on his rack. Question:  Could I legally use our aircraft, as a Private Pilot, to drop these things off at some of the airports for him?   I get to most of the airports around here anyway, either when doing a "$100 Hamburger" run, or when I’m at them for other business reasons.   It seems like an easy thing to do, when I’m there.   (There isn’t a very strict deadline on the distribution of this stuff, as you can tell!) Since it’s "only incidental to my business", is this kosher?  My other option is to include these drops in our current trucking/delivery schemes, which works — but seems kind of silly. Your thoughts, please? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 The relevant regulation is FAR 61.113(b) (Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.) A Private Pilot nmay may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. Your scenario would appear to fit the above regulation. I.e. your compensation for operating the aircraft is incidental to the overall purpose of the flight which is to use an airplane as transportation to get from one place to another in order to cinduct whatever business you’re in. No different than renting a car. Yes, you can carry passengers while acting as PIC under these regulations. In my 32 years with the FAA I’ve never seen (or taken) an enforcement action in which this rule was a factor. A review of our Enforcement Information System indictes that there have been a few violations of this rule nationwide over the years but very very few. Enjoy! Best Rick Cremer FAA Safety Inspector Washington, D.C. (FAA Hq) The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Response:

It would seem to me that, as in the other case, you too would fall under the provisions of 61.113(b). From what you’ve told me you are using the airplane as a means of transportation to products to a place that you can then use the product in pursuit of your enterprise. That is, you’re being compensated to stock the display rack with the brochures and the fact that you happen to use your airplane to get to the display rack is incidental to the issue. On the other hand if you were being compensated to deliver the brochures and then someone else was picking them up and stocking the display rack then I would say that you would need a Commercial certificate. Of course that’s my opinion. For an iron clad answer I would have to send you to the FAA’s Chief Counsel’s office (the lawyers) for a legal interpretation but, geeez,  I hate to do that. <g Perhaps  "don’t ask, don’t tell" is a good way to go. Best

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey Rick: Good to hear from an FAA expert — these newsgroups get pretty cluttered up with hearsay and opinions! Got a situation for you:  I own a periodical (primarily newspapers) distribution company.   I have been in contact with a local entrepreneur who currently distributes tourist-type information (brochures, mostly) to most of the airports in Iowa.   He’s got a display rack, and charges the advertisers (casinos, hotels, rental cars, etc.) a fee to have their stuff displayed on his rack. Question:  Could I legally use our aircraft, as a Private Pilot, to drop these things off at some of the airports for him?   I get to most of the airports around here anyway, either when doing a "$100 Hamburger" run, or when I’m at them for other business reasons.   It seems like an easy thing to do, when I’m there.   (There isn’t a very strict deadline on the distribution of this stuff, as you can tell!) Since it’s "only incidental to my business", is this kosher?  My other option is to include these drops in our current trucking/delivery schemes, which works — but seems kind of silly. Your thoughts, please? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 The relevant regulation is FAR 61.113(b) (Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.) A Private Pilot nmay may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. Your scenario would appear to fit the above regulation. I.e. your compensation for operating the aircraft is incidental to the overall purpose of the flight which is to use an airplane as transportation to get from one place to another in order to cinduct whatever business you’re in. No different than renting a car. Yes, you can carry passengers while acting as PIC under these regulations. In my 32 years with the FAA I’ve never seen (or taken) an enforcement action in which this rule was a factor. A review of our Enforcement Information System indictes that there have been a few violations of this rule nationwide over the years but very very few. Enjoy! Best Rick Cremer FAA Safety Inspector Washington, D.C. (FAA Hq) The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Response:

The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Response:

The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc?

Yes, as long as flying is only incidental to the trip and you’re not carrying things for hire, it’s legal.  They can just write you a check for the FBO bill. Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip?

Yes, if you were going to go anyhow.  What you can’t do is act as a pilot for the company, i.e., fly places people or things places you weren’t going to go anyhow. Example:         Me and Joe have a meeting up in Pennsylvania.  Normally, we’d just hop         in our cars and spend three hours driving there.  However, we can just         hop in the plane and go and the company can reimburse me (private pilot)         for the trip.         Joe has a meeting in Pennsylvania, but doesn’t want to drive.  The company         asks me to fly him to the meeting to save time.  This I can’t do as a private         pilot.  Doesn’t matter whether they pay for it or not.

Response:

The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc.

It can be pretty complicated as to what is allowable and what isn’t. I think that both the FAA and AOPA have produced FAQ and guides for what is legal and what isn’t. Those are the best places to start. What ever you do, keep meticulous records and copies of everything. You don’t want to end up on the receiveing end of some FAA action. Craig C.

Response:

Cameron I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the Cameron company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If Cameron so, how do I need to go about it?  Can the pay me directly Cameron for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? My understanding is that it’s legal as long as the flying is incidental to the work.  That is, if you have to go somewhere and you just happen to go by air, as opposed to being paid to fly somewhere. I don’t think you need a commercial ticket. Cameron Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work Cameron colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of Cameron the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that Cameron trip? My understanding is that if it is a trip that _you_ are taking, it’s OK to take other people along.  On the other hand, if it’s a trip that someone else is taking, you can’t offer to give that person a ride and accept reimbursement. I should point out that my understanding might be wrong.  If you’re serious about wanting to know for sure, you should probably call up your local FAA office and ask.  If you’re nervous about calling them, then you’ve just answered your own question. —

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

It is my understanding that if you have your private expense flying if the trip would be expendable. The FAA does not care, there may or may not be tax issues. I think its if FAR 61. –Zach  

Response:

Yeah, the company can pay the FBO bills.  You’re free and clear as long as you abide by the limitations of your certificate. Someone told me there was an allowable federal deduction for mileage when taking an aircraft for business.  It was considerably more that the per-mile allotment for cars.  Seems like it was 50-something cents per mile. Anyone hear of this or know what this deduction is? — Jim Fisher North Alabama Cherokee 180 http://www.stephenames.com/flying/pipers/pipers5.html

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Response:

$.88 per mile http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/homepage/mtt/FTR/newftr/301-10_303… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yeah, the company can pay the FBO bills.  You’re free and clear as long as you abide by the limitations of your certificate. Someone told me there was an allowable federal deduction for mileage when taking an aircraft for business.  It was considerably more that the per-mile allotment for cars.  Seems like it was 50-something cents per mile. Anyone hear of this or know what this deduction is? — Jim Fisher North Alabama Cherokee 180 http://www.stephenames.com/flying/pipers/pipers5.html The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Response:

Your company can reimburse you for travel expenses, whether it is in a car or general aviation airplane you fly.  You are paid to be n engineer or a janitor (whatever) and not for flying.  You are not being paid to fly so it is OK on a PPL.  However, the company won’t pay for two sets of travel expenses and if you get full IRS approved reimbursement and your traveling companion also paid even a "share" you would be making a profit and the FAA won’t allow that. Your company would normally provide expense account forms and pay you after you submit the completed forms.  The company should have procedures for determining the amount they will reimburse. As a guess on my part (GUESS) if your actual cost allowed by the FAA to be shared was $0.90 a mile and you were only allowed $0.50 a mile you MIGHT get away with $0.20 a mile from your buddy, but you might also be fired, lose your FAA certificates and have so lawyer fees. You would be advised that trying to double dip has gotten many people in trouble with the bean counters (and voters). You will need to have your plans approves, either before or after (when it might be serious) by the company (accounting and legal), the IRS and the FAA.  If your bud is a woman you’d better talk to your wife too.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I work for is considering letting us use personal/small aircraft for business travel purposes.  Typically they would reimburse us for our expenses such as aircraft rental (or aircraft operating cost if you own the aircraft), fuel/gas, etc. I am NOT Commercial certified.  Would it be legal if the company were to reimburse me directly for my expenses?  If so, how do I need to go about it? Can the pay me directly for my expenses, or pay the FBO where I rent, etc? Next question, would it be legal if I had a fellow work colleague with me in the aircraft (for the same purpose of the business trip) and they were to reimburse me for that trip? Thank you. Cameron Ninham cpn66 at hotmail dot com

Response:

Question:

I took a quick look at your site and ordered a copy of your check fraud prevention tip sheet.

Great! I’m just preparing to update it, so any feedback is appreciated. Some commentary here about what is happening with thermochromatic inks might be very timely, if you care to share.

I’d be pleased to. The "standard" check of just 5 years ago was reasonably well protected from tampering or counterfeiting, except for the pros who will likely overcome whatever security roadblocks are put in their way. But in the last few years, two technologies have made it relatively easy to reproduce or alter checks: color scanners with inkjet printers, and color copiers. Three security features in particular increased in popularity to fight this: 1. Microprinting – usually a signature line and/or border that looks like a line is really *very* tiny text, that used to require a printing press to reproduce 2. Void pantograph- a special ordering of dots in the background that when scanned or copied by many devices would display words such as Void on the copy 3. Embedded fibres- sometimes flourescent, that could at best be copied, but on closer inspection it would be clear that what looked like a fibre was just a copy (or if flourescent, it would not glow under a black light). Unfortunately on the fraud front, standard scanners and inkjet printers can now adequately circumvent Microprinting and Void Pantograph. It may not be a great copy, but in many cases more than adequate to get past the payee and bank tellers. And since not everyone has a black light, flourescent fibres are somewhat limited (not to mention that I have yet to see a bank teller test for the presence of them). Which is why I’m excited about the use of thermochromatic inks. The "color change" characteristic cannot be copied, at present these inks are not available for inkjet printers or color copiers, and it is very easy to test .. just rub and see if the color disappears. As with any security feature, it’s not foolproof. But the more obstacles we can present, the fewer people remain that have the ability to copy or alter checks. If anyone would like samples, please e-mail me with your mailing address and I’ll get them out to you. lcc. ASAP Checks, Forms & Supplies Computer & Business Checks, Blank Check Paper, MICR Toner and Supplies <http://www.asapchecks.com Toll Free: (888) 85-CHECK

Response:

Over the years I’ve come to reject that and, when the faud indicators are there, adopt the stance of accepting nothing unless it can be substantiated.

Skepticism is what enables you to see the fraud indicators *as* fraud indicators.  As part of an audit, I should be interested in determining whether or not a fraud has occurred, and I shouldn’t start the engagement with a preconceived notion either way. Neither do I, as often happens, look at as if it were a criminal case, where there is a presumption of innocence. However, I agree that once I’ve uncovered indicators of fraud, the evidence necessary to convince me no fraud occurred goes up rather dramatically.  Normally, I’m looking for evidence that couldn’t have been "tainted" by the party I suspect of perpetrating the fraud. Let us not forget that an audit has a wider purpose than merely uncovering fraud and skepticism carries over into those areas as well.   I should presume neither that the statements are misstated nor that they are correct–rather, they are presented for me to make a determination on.  

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One of the large company attendees got into describing some of their scanning techniques; very sophisticated. There are also a couple of articles in the current issue of Accounting Today regarding scanning techniques. I ran across this recently as well. We just introduced thermochromatic ink (changes color when you rub it) on our checks as an additional obstacle for those trying to print on inkjet or copy on a color copier. In preparing samples for the press kit, I could not believe how some of the effective-until-recently security features were no longer a problem for standard scanners and inkjet printers to overcome. Frightening stuff. lcc. ASAP Checks, Forms & Supplies Computer & Business Checks, Blank Check Paper, MICR Toner and Supplies <http://www.asapchecks.com Get your *FREE* Check Fraud Tip Sheet now by visiting: <http://www.asapchecks.com/checkfraudrequest.htm Toll Free: (888) 85-CHECK

Les, Thank you for your interesting and extremely pertinent contribution to the thread. I took a quick look at your site and ordered a copy of your check fraud prevention tip sheet. Some commentary here about what is happening with thermochromatic inks might be very timely, if you care to share. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

One of the large company attendees got into describing some of their scanning techniques; very sophisticated. There are also a couple of articles in the current issue of Accounting Today regarding scanning techniques.

I ran across this recently as well. We just introduced thermochromatic ink (changes color when you rub it) on our checks as an additional obstacle for those trying to print on inkjet or copy on a color copier. In preparing samples for the press kit, I could not believe how some of the effective-until-recently security features were no longer a problem for standard scanners and inkjet printers to overcome. Frightening stuff. lcc. ASAP Checks, Forms & Supplies Computer & Business Checks, Blank Check Paper, MICR Toner and Supplies <http://www.asapchecks.com Get your *FREE* Check Fraud Tip Sheet now by visiting: <http://www.asapchecks.com/checkfraudrequest.htm Toll Free: (888) 85-CHECK

Response:

snip I think what Jim was referring to, …

snip I’ve always take words to mean what they mean.  I see from his subsequent post, that he meant what you say. snip The proper stance really is a "healthy skepticism" …

Over the years I’ve come to reject that and, when the faud indicators are there, adopt the stance of accepting nothing unless it can be substantiated.  Everyone lies, its only a matter of degree. Psychologists have a nice term for the little lies, ego defense mechanisms.

Response:

 You want to be a lot more "Colombo"…..

snip That hollywood character is so annoying I am sure he would have been given the boot in ten minutes if he wasn’t a badged officer. I’ve found middle management gets very irritated when you keep asking the same question. snip "Mr. CEO, this is the last question, and it should be obvious why I have to ask it. Have you committed fraud or other illegal acts against the company?"  Mr. Wells continues with the admonishment, "Do not apologize for asking the question; it’s your job."

snip That (usually) only works when you have really strong evidence on the desk, in front of him, and your going for a confession at the end of the procedures. I know it sounds impressive, if a bit stilted, but it usually doesn’t happen that way.

Response:

 You want to be a lot more "Colombo"….. snip That hollywood character is so annoying I am sure he would have been given the boot in ten minutes if he wasn’t a badged officer. I’ve found middle management gets very irritated when you keep asking the same question. snip

Of course they get irritated.  That is why it is usually not done.  That also makes it easy for a fraud to go undetected. And yes, Colombo is a bit exaggerated – but you did get what I was trying to say. "Mr. CEO, this is the last question, and it should be obvious why I have to ask it. Have you committed fraud or other illegal acts against the company?"  Mr. Wells continues with the admonishment, "Do not apologize for asking the question; it’s your job." snip That (usually) only works when you have really strong evidence on the desk, in front of him, and your going for a confession at the end of the procedures. I know it sounds impressive, if a bit stilted, but it usually doesn’t happen that way.

Wells is talking about a routine SAS 82 interview of any highly placed executive.  Wells goes on to state, "As stated, the vast majority of respondents will answer "no" without hesitation, whether they have or not. Simply asking the question will give you a much more favorable posture if you are ever attacked professionally for not detecting the fraud.  At least you will be able to tell the court or any other authority that you did not shirk your professional responsibilities, that you asked each person you interviewed in connection with the audit or examination, and that you were lied to." Does it happen that way today – unusually not.  Who keeps losing fraud related lawsuits – auditors.  Maybe it is time for a change. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

snip In order to do fraud discovery work you need the training of an auditor,

snip We found, over the years, that the training was one of the least important factors, once you pass the minimum required knowledge base level.  The most important attribute seemed to be a personal characteristic.  "Good investigators are born, not made."  <yes, I know that’s not pc

Response:

snip   I do not think it is possible for a non confrontational …

snip In fraud work, it is very important to be non confrontational.  If you go in with a confrontational demeanor, the auditee shuts down.  I found the behavioral patterns necessary to be a good investigator complex and very difficult for most accounting types <like me to act out. When I went in with an investigator, after the introductions, when things looked productive, I always turned the floor over to him. One of the reasons I passed the CFE by was I noticed that it was more geared toward the investigative types. snip

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In fraud work, it is very important to be non confrontational. I think what Jim was referring to, though, was the tendency by many in the accounting profession to accept an explanation (no matter how questionable) rather than take any additional investigative action.  That is, uncovering a fraud appears to be a nasty experience to the accountant, so he/she grasps for straws to avoid that outcome. I don’t think he meant to come rolling into the office and immediately bring out "in your face" tactics.  I would agree that such tactics are likely to be counterproductive *AND* may allow the perpetrator of fraud to actually get others on his/her side against the "nasty" auditor. The proper stance really is a "healthy skepticism" about information that you receive.  That doesn’t mean assuming there is fraud sitting under every document, but it also means not assuming it isn’t there either.

Ed, Thanks.  You read my mind. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – snip   I do not think it is possible for a non confrontational … snip In fraud work, it is very important to be non confrontational.  If you go in with a confrontational demeanor, the auditee shuts down.  I found the behavioral patterns necessary to be a good investigator complex and very difficult for most accounting types <like me to act out. When I went in with an investigator, after the introductions, when things looked productive, I always turned the floor over to him. One of the reasons I passed the CFE by was I noticed that it was more geared toward the investigative types. snip

Ron, Thanks for the comment.  I completely agree with what I think you are saying.  You want to be a lot more "Colombo" than "Rambo".  The trick it to confront reality in a non threatening manner. My comments were intended in the context of the latent potentialities of the auditor / investigator.  The auditor must be able to confront the reality before him / her without flinching. Joseph Wells, founder of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, writing in OCCUPATIONAL FRAUD AND ABUSE, poses the following as a necessary question with regard to fraudulent financial statement schemes.  "Mr. CEO, this is the last question, and it should be obvious why I have to ask it. Have you committed fraud or other illegal acts against the company?"  Mr. Wells continues with the admonishment, "Do not apologize for asking the question; it’s your job." That, in my opinion, is confrontation; well put, polite, but confrontation nevertheless. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

According to The Association, most frauds come to light when someone squeals. I attended a two day Association sponsored training session … large company attendees got into describing some of their scanning techniques; very sophisticated. There are also a couple of articles in the current issue of Accounting Today regarding scanning techniques. Unfortunately, I have found that to be a statement you can take to the bank.  I have never found internal or external auditors to be very useful when it comes to fraud discovery work, it doesn’t seem to be in their character.  (note, I say discovery. once the problem is uncovered the verification work is no problem) It took me a long time to come to the conclusion there was a problem with the IA’s.

One of the brightest new niches in the accounting industry, in my view, will be providing various internal control, monitoring, and scanning services remotely.   As systems become better automated, and labor is saved, there is almost an inherent, mechanical law that there will be fewer people looking at the average transaction.  Right?  The whole point of automation is to remove human labor and attention, in effect, reduce headcount.  YES, its true, better system design can marshall up various control totals and other control information to acheive separation of duties.  But that depends on managemnet being sophisticated and experienced enough to understand the systems, and, local data like that can always be hacked. Prediction:  as midsized businesses increasingly send and receive bills, orders, invoices, BOMs, BOLs, ASNs etc over the internet, there will be a systematic increase in several factors:  1.  there will be more and more businesses that are accessible    remotely, and become candidates for all kinds of accounting services, and  2.  those clients will have systematically fewer clerical employees, and    no matter how you slice it, they won’t have adequate numbers for    adequate separation of duties, and  3.  particularly in the early years of ecommerce, there will be a lot of    crazy shit happening, risks being taken, etc. in order to reach the    benefits of ecommerce (better access to markets, lower cost etc.) These    new risks will be fought by technical and crypto stuff, yeah, firewalls    and VPNs and so forth. But regardless of the technical fixes, there    will be systematically larger number of exposures which need some    degree of monitoring. Prediction:  all midsized companies will be quite receptive to any reasonably priced outsourced service, to observe the numbers and transactions in various ways, to keep things on track.  CPAs know their biz, and CPAs know internal control very very well.  Remember this is NOT a crypto thing: other vendors will bolt in the firewalls, encrypted links, authentication devices, and usually, leave.   The bulk of this business is plain ol fashioned diligence. I don’t think todays 500,000 CPAs will pay the least attention to this opportunity; but the business is theirs to lose, if they want it. More likely, some specialist providers will grow into this space. They will need good people. Probably a good job oppty.   HEY!  Jim Hudspeth spotted this before me! * Todd F. Boyle CPA    http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * XML accounting, web ledgers, BSPs, ASPs, whatever it takes int

Response:

In fraud work, it is very important to be non confrontational.

I think what Jim was referring to, though, was the tendency by many in the accounting profession to accept an explanation (no matter how questionable) rather than take any additional investigative action.  That is, uncovering a fraud appears to be a nasty experience to the accountant, so he/she grasps for straws to avoid that outcome. I don’t think he meant to come rolling into the office and immediately bring out "in your face" tactics.  I would agree that such tactics are likely to be counterproductive *AND* may allow the perpetrator of fraud to actually get others on his/her side against the "nasty" auditor. The proper stance really is a "healthy skepticism" about information that you receive.  That doesn’t mean assuming there is fraud sitting under every document, but it also means not assuming it isn’t there either.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or worse, as seems to be the case in a lot of published occurrences, simply not looking or asking the questions in the first place.  SAS 82 (Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit) is supposed to fix that, but I don’t think it will.  Until accountants develop the capacity to confront, they will not confront, regardless of the rules.  They will, however, lose more lawsuits. Thinking and asking questions??? Hmm, that wasn’t in the audit program… Seriously, there’s a state of mind problem here as well that always causes security problems.  While fraud exists out there, it will still be the case that in the majority of audits no material fraud will be uncovered, potentially because none is there (always a possibility <grin).  That constant string of no frauds builds a complacency on the part of the auditor, added to by the pressure to bring the audit in on budget for time. Reality is that if you find a potential fraud, the odds of bringing this thing in anywhere near the time budget are pretty much shot <grin.  So the fear of the false alarm becomes greater than the fear of not uncovering a fraud. Not only does the auditor not actively look for fraud any longer, but they even become *blind* to it when it stares them in the face.  I vaguely recall some studies on this effect conducted with airport security personnel where it was found that the person sitting there staring at the X-rays of luggage for hours on end eventually could essentially become "blind" to obvious contraband.  I think the same effect takes place with auditors. SAS 82 may help, but unfortunately it’s going to do so in the manner you suggested–when auditors fail to consider the possibility of fraud, SAS 82 will allow plaintiffs attorneys to hang them on that fact.  Unfortunately, that may be the only way to get their attention. Embezzlement is just one form of fraud.  There are others. I know, but I couldn’t come up with a good name for the fraud perpetrator.  The same issues will apply to anyone perpetrating a fraud, though–they will design their fraud taking into account the expected means through which it might be detected.  They also will be a position in the organization where they will clearly be able to probe for the weak points. I remember one study that showed that most fraudulent transactions have lots of "9" digits in them (like $999.00).  That’s because, almost without exception, most screens on transactions and many other controls are designed to ignore "immaterial" transactions and materiality is almost always set at nice round figures. No audit program can possibly anticipate and test for all forms of potential fraud.  The auditor can and should be alert and unpredictable. For instance, sampling not from all transactions above $1,000 each year, but perhaps randomly varying the bottom end of that range. However, that would require varying from the preprinted program and actually *thinking*–and we know accountants don’t like to do either of those <grin. How many people do you know who would describe accountants as unpredictable.  If we are going to learn to catch crooks, we must learn to "think outside the box", and that means being a bit unpredictable. I’m not advocating totally throwing away the audit program and doing a "seat of your pants" audit each time.  But, as you noted, you need to add some unpredictability into the process.  While doing the exact same thing every year may make you very efficient at handling the audit, it also helps the efficiency of those attempting to evade detection for their transactions.

A typical Ed Zollar post – all very good points. The broad consensus term for the fraud perpetrator seems to be "fraudster".  The term may sound a bit crass, but it is the word that keeps popping up. The first step, the key, in my opinion, is the will to confront.  By that I mean a willingness to face the facts, compare the words to the music.  If the words don’t match the music, find out why. This does necessarily entail extreme confrontation with individuals.  As Ron Todd points out in a related branch of this thread, too much confrontation causes auditees to shut down, and without the cooperation of auditees you aren’t likely to discover anything. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

Or worse, as seems to be the case in a lot of published occurrences, simply not looking or asking the questions in the first place.  SAS 82 (Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit) is supposed to fix that, but I don’t think it will.  Until accountants develop the capacity to confront, they will not confront, regardless of the rules.  They will, however, lose more lawsuits.

Thinking and asking questions??? Hmm, that wasn’t in the audit program… Seriously, there’s a state of mind problem here as well that always causes security problems.  While fraud exists out there, it will still be the case that in the majority of audits no material fraud will be uncovered, potentially because none is there (always a possibility <grin).  That constant string of no frauds builds a complacency on the part of the auditor, added to by the pressure to bring the audit in on budget for time.   Reality is that if you find a potential fraud, the odds of bringing this thing in anywhere near the time budget are pretty much shot <grin.  So the fear of the false alarm becomes greater than the fear of not uncovering a fraud.   Not only does the auditor not actively look for fraud any longer, but they even become *blind* to it when it stares them in the face.  I vaguely recall some studies on this effect conducted with airport security personnel where it was found that the person sitting there staring at the X-rays of luggage for hours on end eventually could essentially become "blind" to obvious contraband.  I think the same effect takes place with auditors. SAS 82 may help, but unfortunately it’s going to do so in the manner you suggested–when auditors fail to consider the possibility of fraud, SAS 82 will allow plaintiffs attorneys to hang them on that fact.  Unfortunately, that may be the only way to get their attention. Embezzlement is just one form of fraud.  There are others.  

I know, but I couldn’t come up with a good name for the fraud perpetrator.  The same issues will apply to anyone perpetrating a fraud, though–they will design their fraud taking into account the expected means through which it might be detected.  They also will be a position in the organization where they will clearly be able to probe for the weak points. I remember one study that showed that most fraudulent transactions have lots of "9" digits in them (like $999.00).  That’s because, almost without exception, most screens on transactions and many other controls are designed to ignore "immaterial" transactions and materiality is almost always set at nice round figures. No audit program can possibly anticipate and test for all forms of potential fraud.  The auditor can and should be alert and unpredictable.

For instance, sampling not from all transactions above $1,000 each year, but perhaps randomly varying the bottom end of that range. However, that would require varying from the preprinted program and actually *thinking*–and we know accountants don’t like to do either of those <grin. How many people do you know who would describe accountants as unpredictable.  If we are going to learn to catch crooks, we must learn to "think outside the box", and that means being a bit unpredictable.

I’m not advocating totally throwing away the audit program and doing a "seat of your pants" audit each time.  But, as you noted, you need to add some unpredictability into the process.  While doing the exact same thing every year may make you very efficient at handling the audit, it also helps the efficiency of those attempting to evade detection for their transactions.

Response:

In order to do fraud discovery work you need the training of an auditor, the nose of a street cop, and a craving for "the kill".  I do not think it is possible for a non confrontational number cruncher to do fraud discovery. Agreed that being nonconfrontational is not going to work very well in a fraud situation.  If that is the nature of the person (and, in many cases, that is true of accountants) then there will be a strong tendency to attempt to find *some* innocent explanation for the issues and/or to accept the story of the parties in question (who plainly have the incentive to lie).

Or worse, as seems to be the case in a lot of published occurrences, simply not looking or asking the questions in the first place.  SAS 82 (Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit) is supposed to fix that, but I don’t think it will.  Until accountants develop the capacity to confront, they will not confront, regardless of the rules.  They will, however, lose more lawsuits. Additionally, those creating frauds tend to design their frauds around the weaknesses of the systems in place–and the auditor (either internal or external) is generally one of the "systems" that the embezzler gets to study.

<clarity break Auditors’ love of standardized audit programs actually work in favor of the embezzler, since the embezzler can predict what the auditor is going to look at and design the fraud around those steps.

Embezzlement is just one form of fraud.  There are others.  No audit program can possibly anticipate and test for all forms of potential fraud.  The auditor can and should be alert and unpredictable. How many people do you know who would describe accountants as unpredictable.  If we are going to learn to catch crooks, we must learn to "think outside the box", and that means being a bit unpredictable. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – According to The Association, most frauds come to light when someone squeals. I attended a two day Association sponsored training session … large company attendees got into describing some of their scanning techniques; very sophisticated. There are also a couple of articles in the current issue of Accounting Today regarding scanning techniques. Unfortunately, I have found that to be a statement you can take to the bank.  I have never found internal or external auditors to be very useful when it comes to fraud discovery work, it doesn’t seem to be in their character.  (note, I say discovery. once the problem is uncovered the verification work is no problem) It took me a long time to come to the conclusion there was a problem with the IA’s. One of the brightest new niches in the accounting industry, in my view, will be providing various internal control, monitoring, and scanning services remotely. As systems become better automated, and labor is saved, there is almost an inherent, mechanical law that there will be fewer people looking at the average transaction.  Right?  The whole point of automation is to remove human labor and attention, in effect, reduce headcount.  YES, its true, better system design can marshall up various control totals and other control information to acheive separation of duties.  But that depends on managemnet being sophisticated and experienced enough to understand the systems, and, local data like that can always be hacked. Prediction:  as midsized businesses increasingly send and receive bills, orders, invoices, BOMs, BOLs, ASNs etc over the internet, there will be a systematic increase in several factors:  1.  there will be more and more businesses that are accessible    remotely, and become candidates for all kinds of accounting services, and  2.  those clients will have systematically fewer clerical employees, and    no matter how you slice it, they won’t have adequate numbers for    adequate separation of duties, and  3.  particularly in the early years of ecommerce, there will be a lot of    crazy shit happening, risks being taken, etc. in order to reach the    benefits of ecommerce (better access to markets, lower cost etc.) These    new risks will be fought by technical and crypto stuff, yeah, firewalls    and VPNs and so forth. But regardless of the technical fixes, there    will be systematically larger number of exposures which need some    degree of monitoring. Prediction:  all midsized companies will be quite receptive to any reasonably priced outsourced service, to observe the numbers and transactions in various ways, to keep things on track.  CPAs know their biz, and CPAs know internal control very very well.  Remember this is NOT a crypto thing: other vendors will bolt in the firewalls, encrypted links, authentication devices, and usually, leave.   The bulk of this business is plain ol fashioned diligence. I don’t think todays 500,000 CPAs will pay the least attention to this opportunity; but the business is theirs to lose, if they want it. More likely, some specialist providers will grow into this space. They will need good people. Probably a good job oppty.   HEY!  Jim Hudspeth spotted this before me!

Jim Hudspeth has been giving this a lot of thought. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

snip The only problem I have with the above hypothesis is the notion that M$ would be so sloppy as to permit an accounts payable coordinator to get her hands on the bank reconciliation. As to "sloppy," I don’t think it is a good idea to make an assumption like that. First rule of auditing:  Make no assumptions.

We are ruminating, musing, cogitating, speculating, and  contemplating We are not assuming, affirming, attesting or auditing. For my two cents, I’ve always thought that M$ had all the indicators of a potential fraud magnet, high growth, huge cash flows, spread out all over the world, huge new heir flow, high pressure to make targets, etc…..

The ongoing antitrust case and the stock market dive aren’t going to improve the situation either. snip According to The Association, most frauds come to light when someone squeals. Unfortunately, I have found that to be a statement you can take to the bank.  I have never found internal or external auditors to be very useful when it comes to fraud discovery work, it doesn’t seem to be in their character.

In order to do fraud discovery work you need the training of an auditor, the nose of a street cop, and a craving for "the kill".  I do not think it is possible for a non confrontational number cruncher to do fraud discovery. (note, I say discovery. once the problem is uncovered the verification work is no problem) It took me a long time to come to the conclusion there was a problem with the IA’s.

That is doubly true when the internal audit work is being "outsourced" to the outside auditors. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

snip The only problem I have with the above hypothesis is the notion that M$ would be so sloppy as to permit an accounts payable coordinator to get her hands on the bank reconciliation.  

As to "sloppy," I don’t think it is a good idea to make an assumption like that. First rule of auditing:  Make no assumptions. For my two cents, I’ve always thought that M$ had all the indicators of a potential fraud magnet, high growth, huge cash flows, spread out all over the world, huge new heir flow, high pressure to make targets, etc….. snip According to The Association, most frauds come to light when someone squeals.

Unfortunately, I have found that to be a statement you can take to the bank.  I have never found internal or external auditors to be very useful when it comes to fraud discovery work, it doesn’t seem to be in their character.  (note, I say discovery. once the problem is uncovered the verification work is no problem) It took me a long time to come to the conclusion there was a problem with the IA’s. snip

Response:

In order to do fraud discovery work you need the training of an auditor, the nose of a street cop, and a craving for "the kill".  I do not think it is possible for a non confrontational number cruncher to do fraud discovery.

Agreed that being nonconfrontational is not going to work very well in a fraud situation.  If that is the nature of the person (and, in many cases, that is true of accountants) then there will be a strong tendency to attempt to find *some* innocent explanation for the issues and/or to accept the story of the parties in question (who plainly have the incentive to lie). Additionally, those creating frauds tend to design their frauds around the weaknesses of the systems in place–and the auditor (either internal or external) is generally one of the "systems" that the embezzler gets to study.  Auditors’ love of standardized audit programs actually work in favor of the embezzler, since the embezzler can predict what the auditor is going to look at and design the fraud around those steps.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – She is then suspected of reissuing the checks in the same amounts to people and businesses around the country and in Switzerland, none of whom were owed money by Microsoft. I am reading between the lines to assume that those "reissued" checks were not generated via normal means.  It appears she was scanning the outstanding checks for those that should have been voided (and which she was assuming had been misplaced and/or would never be cashed) and then replacing them with her own checks drawn on Microsoft accounts in the same amount.  I’m not sure a reporter would make a clear distinction over *how* she generated the checks. Given the number of transactions that Microsoft would engage in, it probably wouldn’t be difficult to find $1.2 million worth of apparently "abandoned" funds over a period of two years (which, as I recall, is the time period that it appears this fraud took place over).

The only problem I have with the above hypothesis is the notion that M$ would be so sloppy as to permit an accounts payable coordinator to get her hands on the bank reconciliation.  Normally, in a company this size, those functions would be in different departments.  Given her position it is more likely she managed to get her hands on the finished checks.  While that is also a separate function, it is fairly easy to do (I don’t want to say any more for fear of drawing a map for some wanna be fraudster). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It appears she either voided or destroyed the original checks and reissued them to herself and / or her associates.  There is no mention of any alteration of further records. I suspect she allowed the checks to be issued in order to have "good" records.  It seems implied that she voided checks "that had never been cashed" which suggests to me that it might be related to checks that seemed to be uncashed.  Now, while the average balance would be over $10K given the numbers, Microsoft does have customers/vendors for whom $10K would be immaterial.  In fact, in a funny sort of way, it might be easier to get a large vendor to ignore a $10K discrepency than to get you or me to ignore a $100 one in our business <grin. She would need to pick up about 5 checks a month with the numbers involved.  She would also likely know which AR departments are "sloppy"–especially if her mode of operation was to go after the checks that a) were never cashed and b) where there was no vendor complaint about a lost check that got funds sent out earlier.  A vendor that meets those tests pretty much by definition is fouled up enough that she likely believed the issue would never be noticed. In that case, no only would she not modify records, but she has no desire to do so.  The original records show a legitimate payment to a legitimate vendor.  What is wrong in the records is the failure to record the void *AND* the failure to record the reissuance–which follows the fact that the "best" frauds don’t show up in the records.

According to The Association, most frauds come to light when someone squeals. This may be changing, however, at least where large well managed organizations are involved.  I attended a two day Association sponsored training session in May.  One of the large company attendees got into describing some of their scanning techniques; very sophisticated. There are also a couple of articles in the current issue of Accounting Today regarding scanning techniques. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As I noted then, don’t confuse one internal control procedure (not being able to change entries after they are posted) with actual security. An absolutely true statement. In this case, it appears the unchanging entries on the books actually were used to provide cover for the fraud. That really doesn’t work.  What trips up this sort of scam are vendor complaints.  Given the timing (early 1999 to June 2000) she would have had to have done something to passify those vendor payees.  That is not commented on in the article. As I noted above, I think the whole point was to use those vendors that were least likely to complain due to deficiencies in their own AR departments.  That is, a check had been issued, was not cashed and the vendor didn’t complain. I suspect that, like many involved in fraud, she simply kept getting bolder when her frauds weren’t uncovered. Eventually she may have simply gotten sloppy and finally pulled this stunt with an entity that was competent enough to push the issue through to the end.  Once you understood the pattern to her fraud, it was probably easy to find the other "questionable" disbursements. This appears to be a "grab the money and run" situation.  Of course she didn’t run quick enough.  According to the article, she resigned on June 5 (Monday) and by June 9 (Friday) the FBI had her passport.  When you actually think about it, that is really pretty quick – unless M$ was onto it prior to June 5. I suspect somebody in Microsoft was on to the issue by June 5, which prompted her to resign.  My guess is that it wasn’t her design to grab the money and run, at least by the end. At that point, she probably felt she could keep doing this forever. My real point, though, was that if you can’t change the underlying accounting records retained by the company (and we’ll assume that Microsoft had that covered), you just make your changes to the documents that go outside the enterprise to actually execute the transaction.

We have so little real information we can only speculate at this point.  I’ll be interested in discussing it more when we know more. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

According to the Seattle PI, a former Microsoft employee allegedly diverted in excess of $1.2 Million to herself, some of which she allegedly deposited in a Swiss account. It appears, based on the PI report, that this was a old fashioned low tech check tampering scheme. http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/embz24.shtml — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

It appears, based on the PI report, that this was a old fashioned low tech check tampering scheme.

And, to follow up on a discussion we had here a little while back, it was also done without having to modify the accounting records.  As I noted then, don’t confuse one internal control procedure (not being able to change entries after they are posted) with actual security.  In this case, it appears the unchanging entries on the books actually were used to provide cover for the fraud. — Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ) http://www.hmtzcpas.com

Response:

It appears, based on the PI report, that this was a old fashioned low tech check tampering scheme. And, to follow up on a discussion we had here a little while back, it was also done without having to modify the accounting records.

That depends on what you mean by "accounting records".  According to the PI, "In an affidavit requesting the search warrants, FBI Special Agent Michael Kash outlined the case against Campbell: She voided more than 100 checks to Microsoft vendors that had never been cashed, totaling $1,276,462. She is then suspected of reissuing the checks in the same amounts to people and businesses around the country and in Switzerland, none of whom were owed money by Microsoft. Campbell allegedly forwarded the checks to her own bank accounts — at least one of which was in a private Swiss depository — and to friends or accomplices." It appears she either voided or destroyed the original checks and reissued them to herself and / or her associates.  There is no mention of any alteration of further records. As I noted then, don’t confuse one internal control procedure (not being able to change entries after they are posted) with actual security.

An absolutely true statement. In this case, it appears the unchanging entries on the books actually were used to provide cover for the fraud.

That really doesn’t work.  What trips up this sort of scam are vendor complaints.  Given the timing (early 1999 to June 2000) she would have had to have done something to passify those vendor payees.  That is not commented on in the article. This appears to be a "grab the money and run" situation.  Of course she didn’t run quick enough.  According to the article, she resigned on June 5 (Monday) and by June 9 (Friday) the FBI had her passport.  When you actually think about it, that is really pretty quick – unless M$ was onto it prior to June 5. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

She is then suspected of reissuing the checks in the same amounts to people and businesses around the country and in Switzerland, none of whom were owed money by Microsoft.

I am reading between the lines to assume that those "reissued" checks were not generated via normal means.  It appears she was scanning the outstanding checks for those that should have been voided (and which she was assuming had been misplaced and/or would never be cashed) and then replacing them with her own checks drawn on Microsoft accounts in the same amount.  I’m not sure a reporter would make a clear distinction over *how* she generated the checks. Given the number of transactions that Microsoft would engage in, it probably wouldn’t be difficult to find $1.2 million worth of apparently "abandoned" funds over a period of two years (which, as I recall, is the time period that it appears this fraud took place over). It appears she either voided or destroyed the original checks and reissued them to herself and / or her associates.  There is no mention of any alteration of further records.

I suspect she allowed the checks to be issued in order to have "good" records.  It seems implied that she voided checks "that had never been cashed" which suggests to me that it might be related to checks that seemed to be uncashed.  Now, while the average balance would be over $10K given the numbers, Microsoft does have customers/vendors for whom $10K would be immaterial.  In fact, in a funny sort of way, it might be easier to get a large vendor to ignore a $10K discrepency than to get you or me to ignore a $100 one in our business <grin.   She would need to pick up about 5 checks a month with the numbers involved.  She would also likely know which AR departments are "sloppy"–especially if her mode of operation was to go after the checks that a) were never cashed and b) where there was no vendor complaint about a lost check that got funds sent out earlier.  A vendor that meets those tests pretty much by definition is fouled up enough that she likely believed the issue would never be noticed. In that case, no only would she not modify records, but she has no desire to do so.  The original records show a legitimate payment to a legitimate vendor.  What is wrong in the records is the failure to record the void *AND* the failure to record the reissuance–which follows the fact that the "best" frauds don’t show up in the records. As I noted then, don’t confuse one internal control procedure (not being able to change entries after they are posted) with actual security. An absolutely true statement. In this case, it appears the unchanging entries on the books actually were used to provide cover for the fraud. That really doesn’t work.  What trips up this sort of scam are vendor complaints.  Given the timing (early 1999 to June 2000) she would have had to have done something to passify those vendor payees.  That is not commented on in the article.

As I noted above, I think the whole point was to use those vendors that were least likely to complain due to deficiencies in their own AR departments.  That is, a check had been issued, was not cashed and the vendor didn’t complain.   I suspect that, like many involved in fraud, she simply kept getting bolder when her frauds weren’t uncovered. Eventually she may have simply gotten sloppy and finally pulled this stunt with an entity that was competent enough to push the issue through to the end.  Once you understood the pattern to her fraud, it was probably easy to find the other "questionable" disbursements. This appears to be a "grab the money and run" situation.  Of course she didn’t run quick enough.  According to the article, she resigned on June 5 (Monday) and by June 9 (Friday) the FBI had her passport.  When you actually think about it, that is really pretty quick – unless M$ was onto it prior to June 5.

I suspect somebody in Microsoft was on to the issue by June 5, which prompted her to resign.  My guess is that it wasn’t her design to grab the money and run, at least by the end. At that point, she probably felt she could keep doing this forever.   My real point, though, was that if you can’t change the underlying accounting records retained by the company (and we’ll assume that Microsoft had that covered), you just make your changes to the documents that go outside the enterprise to actually execute the transaction. — Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ) http://www.hmtzcpas.com

Response:

Question:

I have an embroidery business and I need to find out how to figure the cost of goods sold?  First of all, I use quickbooks pro.  The next thing is whether or not I have to account for all the thread, backing and consumables it takes to make one hat, shirt or salable item.  If I do not need to account for all the items it takes to make a product.  Then I would assume that I record these items a supplies and just record my work as services and sell the garment at a marked up price.  Can someone please point me in the right direction? Thanks

Response:

My wife has a business with the same similarities. She creates knitted as sewed items which include thread, buttons etc. We Also use Quickbooks Pro. Unfortunately, the ideal way would be to have an accounting system which assist you in calculating Cost of Goods Manufactured. This would require the set up of all raw materials in inventory which are issued as used to the product being made. This would allow you to know exactly how much the individual product costs to make. Once complete, this value would be transferred to finished goods inventory. Once sold, the value would come out of finished goods and charged to Cost of Goods Sold. Unfortunately, Quickbooks pro does not have this kind of functionality. I have found a work around that is a little cumbersome but accomplishes the same thing. I’ll try to outline it for you in steps. 1. When purchasing raw materials, charge it to a new account created for a particular kind of product having an "other current asset" account type; 2. Set up your product as and inventory part item entering an estimate of the product’s cost in the cost field and the sales price in the sale price field. 3. When the item is sold,  the invoicing routine will result in a debit to the referenced COGS and a credit to inventory part resulting in your inventory part being negative. 4. Print an inventory stock status report. For any products that are in negative balance, enter an item received without invoice under inventory activity "item received" menu against a vendor set up for yourself. Enter the quantity of product that are in negative under the item tab and it will assign the value set up in the cost field of the item master. 5. Under the expense tab for the same transaction, record the raw material account set up above with the negative of the amount that you just entered on the item tab. This will result in the total transaction being "nil", This transaction mimics you purchasing the finished good from yourself. The expense tab procedures relieves the raw material inventory instead of creating an accounts payable. 6. Once you have done this your raw material inventory has been reduced by the estimated cost of the item, your Quickbooks product inventory now reflects your goods that are finished and ready for sale. Once you sell the good it will come out of finished goods and be charged to the related COGS. 7. Since this method uses an estimated product cost to relieve the raw materials, a periodic inventory of the unused raw materials should be undertaken and costed. Any variance to the "other current asset" raw material account should be adjusted by journal entry to the relevant COGS account. I realize that the above recipe may be difficult to follow. Feel free to send me any questions you may have. I have used this method for over a year now. As long as your product cost estimate in your item master is reasonable the journal entry required to adjust your raw material inventory will be minimal. In actual fact, your COGS using this method is using a standard costing method. The journal entry correction converts this standard cost to actual. Brian D’Amboise Chartered Accountant

Response:

Brian While your method might work it is as noted by you rather cumbersome. That said, any business that requires inventory tracking should not be using Quickbooks. The user should be aware that once an inventory transaction is entered it can never be purged. Over time the file size will grow to the point where it is no longer usable. Allan Martin

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My wife has a business with the same similarities. She creates knitted as sewed items which include thread, buttons etc. We Also use Quickbooks Pro. Unfortunately, the ideal way would be to have an accounting system which assist you in calculating Cost of Goods Manufactured. This would require the set up of all raw materials in inventory which are issued as used to the product being made. This would allow you to know exactly how much the individual product costs to make. Once complete, this value would be transferred to finished goods inventory. Once sold, the value would come out of finished goods and charged to Cost of Goods Sold. Unfortunately, Quickbooks pro does not have this kind of functionality. I have found a work around that is a little cumbersome but accomplishes the same thing. I’ll try to outline it for you in steps. 1. When purchasing raw materials, charge it to a new account created for a particular kind of product having an "other current asset" account type; 2. Set up your product as and inventory part item entering an estimate of the product’s cost in the cost field and the sales price in the sale price field. 3. When the item is sold,  the invoicing routine will result in a debit to the referenced COGS and a credit to inventory part resulting in your inventory part being negative. 4. Print an inventory stock status report. For any products that are in negative balance, enter an item received without invoice under inventory activity "item received" menu against a vendor set up for yourself. Enter the quantity of product that are in negative under the item tab and it will assign the value set up in the cost field of the item master. 5. Under the expense tab for the same transaction, record the raw material account set up above with the negative of the amount that you just entered on the item tab. This will result in the total transaction being "nil", This transaction mimics you purchasing the finished good from yourself. The expense tab procedures relieves the raw material inventory instead of creating an accounts payable. 6. Once you have done this your raw material inventory has been reduced by the estimated cost of the item, your Quickbooks product inventory now reflects your goods that are finished and ready for sale. Once you sell the good it will come out of finished goods and be charged to the related COGS. 7. Since this method uses an estimated product cost to relieve the raw materials, a periodic inventory of the unused raw materials should be undertaken and costed. Any variance to the "other current asset" raw material account should be adjusted by journal entry to the relevant COGS account. I realize that the above recipe may be difficult to follow. Feel free to send me any questions you may have. I have used this method for over a year now. As long as your product cost estimate in your item master is reasonable the journal entry required to adjust your raw material inventory will be minimal. In actual fact, your COGS using this method is using a standard costing method. The journal entry correction converts this standard cost to actual. Brian D’Amboise Chartered Accountant

Response:

Question:

One possibility might be to Zip the file first before sending. OTOH PC Anywhere synchronization might be doing an adequate job of compressing the data as it goes down the modem so this might not be very useful. Tony

I believe that the idea of exchanging Zipfiles offers the most reliable and secure solution for the next few years.  However, it requires too much futzing with utilities to succeed for 90% of the small business market. Some fairly ordinary, low-technology software could help make this possible.  Here is an example of how it might work: http://www.gldialtone.com/accsvcPT.htm http://www.gldialtone.com/accsvcQB.htm I’ve posted these theoretical ideas before and gotten real positive feedback, but too lazy to write the software. You could do it real easy, Tony, cmon, help us out would ya? * Todd F. Boyle CPA    http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033       (425) 827-3107

Response:

Quite honestly this method scares me.  I’ve been a programmer for twenty years and have seen all kinds of data corruption.  And that’s without trying anything "interesting" such as you’re doing.  <smile One possibility might be to Zip the file first before sending. OTOH PC Anywhere synchronization might be doing an adequate job of compressing the data as it goes down the modem so this might not be very useful.

Here is a batch file every Peachtree or quickbooks user should consider using.  Especially if you have access to a 2nd hard disk or zipdrive on your machine or on the network.  It automagically maintains 40 versions of backups of your ledger.  It pauses often so the user can read and understand any problems.  Make a shortcut and click it often! Todd c: CDPEACHWIAS F: CD CDbackups CDBACKUPSpawIAS DEL pawIAS40.ZIP REN pawIAS39.ZIP pawIAS40.ZIP REN pawIAS38.ZIP pawIAS39.ZIP REN pawIAS37.ZIP pawIAS38.ZIP REN pawIAS36.ZIP pawIAS37.ZIP REN pawIAS35.ZIP pawIAS36.ZIP REN pawIAS34.ZIP pawIAS35.ZIP REN pawIAS33.ZIP pawIAS34.ZIP REN pawIAS32.ZIP pawIAS33.ZIP REN pawIAS31.ZIP pawIAS32.ZIP REN pawIAS30.ZIP pawIAS31.ZIP REN pawIAS29.ZIP pawIAS30.ZIP pause REN pawIAS28.ZIP pawIAS29.ZIP REN pawIAS27.ZIP pawIAS28.ZIP REN pawIAS26.ZIP pawIAS27.ZIP REN pawIAS25.ZIP pawIAS26.ZIP REN pawIAS24.ZIP pawIAS25.ZIP REN pawIAS23.ZIP pawIAS24.ZIP REN pawIAS22.ZIP pawIAS23.ZIP REN pawIAS21.ZIP pawIAS22.ZIP REN pawIAS20.ZIP pawIAS21.ZIP REN pawIAS19.ZIP pawIAS20.ZIP REN pawIAS18.ZIP pawIAS19.ZIP REN pawIAS17.ZIP pawIAS18.ZIP REN pawIAS16.ZIP pawIAS17.ZIP REN pawIAS15.ZIP pawIAS16.ZIP REN pawIAS14.ZIP pawIAS15.ZIP pause REN pawIAS13.ZIP pawIAS14.ZIP REN pawIAS12.ZIP pawIAS13.ZIP REN pawIAS11.ZIP pawIAS12.ZIP REN pawIAS10.ZIP pawIAS11.ZIP REN pawIAS09.ZIP pawIAS10.ZIP REN pawIAS08.ZIP pawIAS09.ZIP REN pawIAS07.ZIP pawIAS08.ZIP REN pawIAS06.ZIP pawIAS07.ZIP REN pawIAS05.ZIP pawIAS06.ZIP REN pawIAS04.ZIP pawIAS05.ZIP REN pawIAS03.ZIP pawIAS04.ZIP REN pawIAS02.ZIP pawIAS03.ZIP REN pawIAS01.ZIP pawIAS02.ZIP pause PKZIP pawIAS01 c:peachwIAS*.* pause DIRECTORY LISTING IS NEXT. dir /OD /p rem Use the following to copy out to floppy or zipdrive rem for offsite backup or home: rem copy pawIAS01.zip a: pause

Response:

I just upgraded to PC Anywhere 8.0 and stumbled across Speedsend which purports to examine files and only send DATA that has changed instead of the old method of just comparing dates and sending FILES that have changed….

pcAnywhere to send large amounts of data in this way.  One tricky bit is the use of "Synchronise files", which is potentially disastrous if you’re not clear what you are doing.  "Speedsend" is a great attribute, which will work regardless of whether you are synchronising or doing a one-way file transfer.  Irrespective of what Speedsend does, when you synchronise you are overwriting older files with more recent ones, in both directions.  You can easily lose data this way, or corrupt apps that depend on certain files being coordinated in particular ways on the one machine. If you restrict PCA to one-way file transfer you can exercise much closer control over what is being transferred.  PCA has options (under File | Application Options | File Transfer | Protocol | pcAnywhere | Settings) to choose whether to overwrite older files only, all files, etc. Over 2 years, sending about 5 MB files per day (a database of scanned medical records) via PCA, we’ve never had any observed data loss. David Rollo —Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.—

Response:

That is very interesting.  Please advise me of your findings. Gina M. Dent BookSmart St. Louis, MO If you love what you do, you’ll never work another day in your life. -Confucius – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  I just upgraded to PC Anywhere 8.0 and stumbled across Speedsend which purports to examine files and only send DATA that has changed instead of the old method of just comparing dates and sending FILES that have changed.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just upgraded to PC Anywhere 8.0 and stumbled across Speedsend which purports to examine files and only send DATA that has changed instead of the old method of just comparing dates and sending FILES that have changed.  As a test I entered a bill at the remote site then synchronised the files using Speedsend and lo and behold the bill I entered appeared at the prime site with a transfer time of only 2 minutes rather than the hour long process I was used to.  I then paid the bill at the prime site and re- synchronised to the remote site (again a very quick transfer) and yes the payment was there. I know this is not true networking but it appears a wonderful way to use data entry at two sites with regular synchronisation. My concern is that I may be missing something re data corruption and wondered if anyone else had any experience with this process and QB or any other program.  ( Note I have also tested this with a doctors database of patients using Clipper and seemed to have similar good results)

I wouldn’t trust this method at all.  Yes, at first glance it appears that it works but there could be all kinds of wierd things happen. For example.  Try adding an invoice at the remote location and add an invoice at the primary location.  Then try the synchronization.  Make sure you run an integrity check too. Quite honestly this method scares me.  I’ve been a programmer for twenty years and have seen all kinds of data corruption.  And that’s without trying anything "interesting" such as you’re doing.  <smile One possibility might be to Zip the file first before sending. OTOH PC Anywhere synchronization might be doing an adequate job of compressing the data as it goes down the modem so this might not be very useful. Tony —- Message posted to newsgroup and, if appropriate, emailed. Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at    http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm VolStar http://www.volstar.com Manage hundreds or    thousands of volunteers for special events.

Response:

Steve,     Yes, it works (most of the time). I have found that careful testing is necessary and what works in one area of a database may not work in another. (We won’t reindex again any time soon).     Remember, backups are nice. Luck,  Dana To reply, please remove NOSPAM from the address Visit our web site at http://www.tailored-computing.com

Response:

I have been experimenting with PC Anywhere for file transfers and stumbled across something that appears so useful, I am concerned there must be a downside. Basically I have a client with two sites, 20 miles apart.  The networked version of QB is not available in Australia yet.  What I have been doing till today is using PC Anywhere (version 2) to copy the QBW file to the remote site each day so they could use it for interrogation and follow up of debtors balances etc.  However I have warned them never to enter data at the remote site as it would be wiped by the next days download.  I just upgraded to PC Anywhere 8.0 and stumbled across Speedsend which purports to examine files and only send DATA that has changed instead of the old method of just comparing dates and sending FILES that have changed.  As a test I entered a bill at the remote site then synchronised the files using Speedsend and lo and behold the bill I entered appeared at the prime site with a transfer time of only 2 minutes rather than the hour long process I was used to.  I then paid the bill at the prime site and re- synchronised to the remote site (again a very quick transfer) and yes the payment was there. I know this is not true networking but it appears a wonderful way to use data entry at two sites with regular synchronisation. My concern is that I may be missing something re data corruption and wondered if anyone else had any experience with this process and QB or any other program.  ( Note I have also tested this with a doctors database of patients using Clipper and seemed to have similar good results) —Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.—

Response:

Question:

Right, but only if you are willing to create a whole new company for every quicken data file.  If you just want to import your credit card data, you’re out of luck. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Of course, QuickBooks already will convert Quicken data files — so you wouldn’t need such a tool for that specific purpose. I would wonder whether Intuit would be building a similar tool to allow full electronic transaction compatibility. And my guess is the $75 is rather steep for most users.  Especially when they buy the sw for $90 in the store.  Just my .02….fwiw. Regards, Wayne We were thinking of writing a tool which would get Quicken data into Quickbooks through a simple translation process so that I could, for example, get my WebCard Visa from http://www.conductor.com or modem or diskette provided Quicken credit card data into our QuickBooks file in a very easy manner. I would like to have this tool internally anyway, but I’m also wondering if anyone else out there has this same problem or a similar one, and would buy the tool.  We’re thinking $75. If there is something out there which already does this then please tell me where, ’cause I want it. All comments welcome… Schulz Consulting http://www.s-consult.com MAS 90 accounting software consultants since 1986 860-295-9271 Keywords: MAS90 , Connecticut, CT, Accounting, Support

Response:

We were thinking of writing a tool which would get Quicken data into Quickbooks through a simple translation process so that I could, for example, get my WebCard Visa from http://www.conductor.com or modem or diskette provided Quicken credit card data into our QuickBooks file in a very easy manner. I would like to have this tool internally anyway, but I’m also wondering if anyone else out there has this same problem or a similar one, and would buy the tool.  We’re thinking $75. If there is something out there which already does this then please tell me where, ’cause I want it. All comments welcome…    Web-Based Time Tracking                      journyx WebTime    is FREE for 60 Days at                        (512)834-8888

Response:

Question:

This message is a non-commercial request for help on my research ================================================================ My name is Marco van Dongen and i am accounting student at the University of Maastricht (UM) in the Netherlands. To graduate i have to write a thesis. My thesis deals with the Internet and therefore i use this medium to address as many people as possible. I am going to write my thesis about the commercial use of the Internet. My focus will be on planning and implementing activities. What problems do you come across. What are the positive and what are the negative aspects. The paper will NOT be a technical paper. The paper will deal with the question how to deal/manage a growing load of information. I am looking for people to give me suggestions for literature, articles. People that work for companies and have first hand experiences. Research already been done by people. Companies that are willing to participate in a little research by questionaire send on email. Or anything that could possibly be of any help to me. Please respond to me on email. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +                 MAA.vanDon…@Student.unimaas.nl                +     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thanks Marco van Dongen

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In article <34062A0C.F5FCC…@ebicom.net> JMJ <jarr…@ebicom.net> writes: >From: JMJ <jarr…@ebicom.net> >Subject: Re: This message is a non-commercial request for help on my research >Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:46:53 -0700 >Marco van Dongen wrote: >> This message is a non-commercial request for help on my research >> ================================================================ >> My name is Marco van Dongen and i am accounting student >> at the University of Maastricht (UM) in the Netherlands. >> To graduate i have to write a thesis. My thesis deals with >> the Internet and therefore i use this medium to address >> as many people as possible. >> Are you going to write about wiping ass before sex, shitstains on a >> bed after sex or making a bird orgasm? Apparently you have come to the >> right place.

Hahahahahaha! This is ridiculous! And hilarious! (sorry) Cynthia

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -JMJ wrote: > Marco van Dongen wrote: > > This message is a non-commercial request for help on my research > > ================================================================ > > My name is Marco van Dongen and i am accounting student > > at the University of Maastricht (UM) in the Netherlands. > > To graduate i have to write a thesis. My thesis deals with > > the Internet and therefore i use this medium to address > > as many people as possible. > > Are you going to write about wiping ass before sex, shitstains on a > > bed after sex or making a bird orgasm? Apparently you have come to the > > right place. > > I am going to write my thesis about the commercial use of > > the Internet. My focus will be on planning and implementing > > activities. What problems do you come across. What are the > > positive and what are the negative aspects. The paper will > > NOT be a technical paper. The paper will deal with the question > > how to deal/manage a growing load of information. > The only way to deal with the info on this site is to burn it > > I am looking for people to give me suggestions for literature, > > articles. People that work for companies and have first hand > > experiences. Research already been done by people. Companies that > > are willing to participate in a little research by questionaire > > send on email. Or anything that could possibly be of any help to me. > > Please respond to me on email. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +                 MAA.vanDon…@Student.unimaas.nl                + > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Thanks > > Marco van Dongen >>>Ridiculous! If you have a thesis committee that is allowing you to >do this, then you should go to the university chancellor and file a >complaint. You cannot, and should not, assume this medium is to be >"managed", only to be done on a person’s own time and money. In other >words manage it by doing nothing! KPL

Response: