Darrell Scott Saga: One week to go and counting

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Yeah, I bet you want "NEXT." You're scared to death that I'm going to get legal proof that you and this Scott person are in the wrong. You couldn't STAND that, could you?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), February 23, 2001.

You're scared to death that I'm going to get legal proof that you and this Scott person are in the wrong.

WRONG! If someone is claiming something other than the truth or misrepresenting themselves...I WANNA KNOW!

Surprized?

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 23, 2001.

One week to go Tarzan/Already Done or whomever you are today. Assuming you have gotten no response by next Monday, your next step is to call the IRS for not cooperating with the 30 day time frame requirements.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 19, 2001

Answers

I can't speak for Already, but I sent mine in two weeks ago. I've also called and made a verbal request, which was denied. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the law which requires them to comply with a telephoned request, however, it's very telling.

As soon as I call the IRS, you will be the first person I'll tell. And unlike you, I will provide the name and ID of the IRS person I phone.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.


And unlike you, I will provide the name and ID of the IRS person I phone.

Unlike you, I don't really care who you talk to. All thats needed here is the evidence.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 19, 2001.


And unlike you, I will actually offer some, such as the name and ID number of the IRS agent I speak to.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.

Hey Ape Boy...whatever trips your trigger. You wanna get your panties in a bind over what some Federal Bureaucrat had for lunch be my guest.

Tax law is tax law. It isn't dependant on some flavor of the day Federal Employee.

The REAL issue is and has been what the results of the form 990 are for Darrell Scotts 501c3 non-profit org. .

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 19, 2001.


Here we go again. Round #2?

-- tt (tattle@tell.net), March 19, 2001.


Oh please, Ain't. The fact of the matter is that Darrell Scott and the Columbine Redemption aren't listed in Publication 78, which is an IRS publication listing all tax-deductable charities. This fact speaks VOLUMES about Scott's actual status as a bona fide charity. In fact, it says that Scott, far from being "one of the truly squeaky clean good guys with a heart for God" as you claimed, may very well be using his daughter's name to generate a lot of money for himself.

You were in a big hurry to phone the IRS and find out for yourself whether this group was an actual charity only three weeks ago. Since then, for the first time in your posting history here, you have remained silent on a topic you once had a very definite opinion on, such a definite opinion that it lead to four or five spin-off threads and at least two e-mails to Scott himself. Yet now, you keep silent. I wonder why that is?

I used to think you had lied about calling the IRS and haden't looked up Publication 78 at your library, and were too embarassed to admit it. Now, I'm reasonably certain that you did call the IRS and found out that the group is not listed as a charity with the IRS.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.


Oh please, Ain't. The fact of the matter is... ...YADDA YADDA YADDA!

The FACT of the matter is you continue to whine and wimper with no results from your requested form 990 form in hand.

Put away your smoke and mirrors Tarzan and lets discuss the much anticipated results WHEN they arrive. Whether willingly returned by Darrell Scott or forcibly by the IRS intervention.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 19, 2001.


Okay, I can see I have to go slowly here.

If Darrell Scott's organization is not a charity they will not actually have a Form 990 to provide. That means I will not get one.

The fact that Darrell Scott's organization is apparently not considered a charity by the IRS (as you well know) means that it is unlikely that anyone who requests a Form 990 will ever get one.

If no Form 990 exists, then the IRS will not be able to force Scott to produce one. There will, of course, be one hell of an audit when they realize that The Columbine Redemption is a for-profit business masquerading as a charity. Whether or not this makes the light of day remains to be seen.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.


Oh goody! Another wine and cheese party.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 19, 2001.

I'll explain it in terms you can understand, Socrates.

Scott pretends it's WE, but it's actually just HE.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.



Scott pretends it's WE, but it's actually just HE.

Prove it!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 19, 2001.


Come on Ain't. Do you really want to see the numbers again?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.

Come on Ain't. Do you really want to see the numbers again?

AGAIN? 'Again' implies we have already seen 'the COMPLETE' numbers, which is a lie.

Your 'numbers' are just 'some' of 'THE' numbers needed to make a CONCLUSION. Kinda like baking a cake with just some of the ingredients.

Which kinda sums up your 'half-baked' 'WISDOM' oh son of Einstein!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 19, 2001.


off

-- (clean up@crew.com), March 19, 2001.

Scott pretends it's WE, but it's actually just HE.

Once again...Prove it!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 19, 2001.



Close your tags, man!

Let's be honest, Ain't. Both of us know that the IRS doesn't categorize Scott's organization as a charity. Both of us know what that means. As amusing as it is to watch you defend this guy, it's getting a little... well, sad. I think on some level you know that, which is why you've been trying so hard to backpedal on this issue. But scratch the surface, and it's obvious that you're as much of a Darrell Scott supporter as you ever were.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.


Looks like I've struck a nerve.

Close your tags, Ain't, and wipe that spittle from your mouth.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.


And try to do something about that vein in your head, won't you?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.

Just as I suspected Tarzan. YOU have NO PROOF!

It is YOU who are now backpedaling now not me big mouth!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 19, 2001.


Sure Ain't. Whatever gets you through the night. Now take the gun from your head and calm down.

So long as we both know the truth, it makes no difference to me what you want to pretend to the rest of the world.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.


The FACT of the matter is you continue to whine and wimper with no results from your requested form 990 form in hand.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 19, 2001.

Which doesn't change the fact that you are willingly exposing your children to being molested and killed.

-- (spare@the.kids), March 19, 2001.


Marizan Unit Number 947! Welcome back buddy!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 19, 2001.

So far, it looks like the smart money is on Scott opportunistically cashing in on circumstances to make an excellent living from his misfortune. This is good, solid capitalism at work. I like it.

However, his actual message strikes me as incoherent. This is too bad, because it will probably shorten his window of opportunity.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 19, 2001.


spare the kidz: LMAO. :-)

-- morph (morphed@here.now), March 20, 2001.

>>>”You're scared to death that I'm going to get legal proof that you and this Scott person are in the wrong.”

"WRONG! If someone is claiming something other than the truth or misrepresenting themselves...I WANNA KNOW! Surprized?"

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 23, 2001.

Actually, yes, I’m very surprised. Considering your claimed interest in getting this information, I’m amazed that you’re still so snotty about me getting it. You seem more interested in whether or not I’m wrong than in whether or not Mr. Scott is obeying the law. Further, YOU are perfectly capable of requesting the same information that I am, yet you won’t do it.

Ain’t, you are lazy and dishonest. You insist on having others do your work for you.

“One week to go Tarzan/Already Done or whomever you are today.”

No. You really didn’t read the original thread, did you? Or maybe you thought I had forgotten what I wrote? I said that if I had not received a response from Mr. Scott by March 5th, then I would send him a letter, which would be a formal demand for a copy of the Form 990. I sent that return-receipted letter on March 7th. Counting forward 30 days from March 7th would put us at April 6th. Obviously, among all your other shortcomings, we must also list the inability to count, and the inability to read a calendar.

In any event, I haven’t yet received the return receipt, which means one of these things is probably true.

1) The letter’s not there yet. I don’t think that could be the case; two weeks is plenty of time for it to get there.

2) The receipt hasn’t gotten back to me yet. This could be the case. I don’t know how long that normally takes.

3) The US Postal Service screwed something up. This could be, too.

4) I addressed the letter to Mr. Scott – if he’s out doing some speaking engagements, perhaps his employees won’t sign for it. This seems to be unlikely. I think they would sign for it, just like any other business correspondence.

5) Mr. Scott and/or his employees don’t want the letter. This could be, since I included my address in an earlier e-mail to them. Maybe they were expecting my letter, saw my return address on it and don’t want to sign for it?

6) Perhaps there’s another reason I haven’t thought of.

“Assuming you have gotten no response by next Monday, your next step is to call the IRS for not cooperating with the 30 day time frame requirements.”

I can’t believe that someone as stupid as you can actually walk and breathe at the same time. Assuming I have not gotten cooperation by next week, my next step will be to send a registered letter. Without a return receipt or proof of delivery in my hand, I cannot PROVE that Mr. Scott received my demand. If, after I receive a return receipt or proof of delivery, I STILL do not receive cooperation, then my next step will be to submit an FOIA request – NOT to turn the IRS loose on him. The RESULTS of the FOIA request will determine whether or not I call the IRS on him.

Really, Ain’t, we discussed all this already. You really need to go back and review what we talked about, because you're coming across like a raving lunatic.

“Unlike you, I don't really care who you talk to. All thats needed here is the evidence.”

Actually, Ain’t, that would be me and Tarzan both. YOU refuse to provide evidence for your claims, while he and I appear to be getting information both to prove our own points and to discredit yours. If you refuse to present evidence of your own, then you have little business demanding it from others. But you WILL get some from me. You can count on it.

In any event, Ain’t, telling us who you spoke to at the IRS WOULD constitute proof, but you won’t even tell us that. Either you never spoke to the IRS, or you did speak to them and they told you that Scott is not listed as a 501(c)(3). Naturally, you wouldn’t want to tell us THAT. Either way, you’re not being honest, Ain’t.

“The REAL issue is and has been what the results of the form 990 are for Darrell Scotts 501c3 non-profit org. . .”

No, the REAL issue is whether or not the man really IS running a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization. Both you and Mr. Scott claim that he is, yet neither of you will present any proof. The reason we’re going through this rigamarole is because you are too lazy and dishonest to obtain and present the proof yourself, and because Mr. Scott is – for some reason – resisting lawful requests for proof. I think something’s being hidden here.

The secondary issue is (if he really is running such a nonprofit) just how much he’s making each year. Once again, we have discussed this before. You really must try harder.

“The FACT of the matter is you continue to whine and wimper with no results from your requested form 990 form in hand.”

No, you braying jackass, the fact of the matter is that there might not BE a Form 990 forthcoming from Mr. Scott, because he might not BE running a nonprofit, which is a clear violation of the law. Another fact is that you and/or Mr. Scott could dispel this cloud YOURSELVES, but have not seen fit to do so. Tell us, Ain’t – if Mr. Scott really were running a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, then why not prove it and have done with it all? Looks to me like Mr. Scott has something to hide. And I’ll find it, eventually.

“Put away your smoke and mirrors Tarzan and lets discuss the much anticipated results WHEN they arrive.”

IF they arrive. He might be illegally CLAIMING to be running a 501(c) (3) nonprofit. You have not considered that possibility.

“Prove it!”

Ain’t, I’m getting more than a little tired of your constant demands that others provide you proof. I’m also getting more than a little tired of your constant REFUSAL to provide any proof of your own. It is rapidly becoming apparent that you are lazy, dishonest and not to be trusted. An honest and trustworthy person could be relied upon to at least ATTEMPT to prove their points. But you just can’t be bothered, can you?

”AGAIN? 'Again' implies we have already seen 'the COMPLETE' numbers, which is a lie.”

No, we have not seen the complete numbers, but we have made some educated guesses. In the absence of Mr. Scott’s compliance with the law, and in light of your refusal to prove your points, that’s the best we can do. However, it is very telling that you both refuse to support your claims when you COULD do so. Very telling indeed. I think we have hit very close to home with Mr. Scott. Our income estimates may have been more accurate than I thought.

“Your 'numbers' are just 'some' of 'THE' numbers needed to make a CONCLUSION. Kinda like baking a cake with just some of the ingredients.”

And without proof, your claim that Mr. Scott is running a nonprofit charity is just a guess. Kind of like baking a cake with some ingredients, but not necessarily the right ones.

“Which kinda sums up your 'half-baked' 'WISDOM' oh son of Einstein! “

I’ll take Tarzan’s considered and supported statements over your raving and intellectual dishonesty any day. I don’t always agree with him, but he does get his ducks in a row. Yours are all over the landscape.

“Just as I suspected Tarzan. YOU have NO PROOF! It is YOU who are now backpedaling now not me big mouth!”

No, Ain’t. Tarzan and I are GETTING the proof that YOU REFUSE to get. No one here is backpedaling but YOU. You can’t even keep the discussion straight. Further, YOU have no proof. That’s why Tarzan and I are GATHERING proof.

“So far, it looks like the smart money is on Scott opportunistically cashing in on circumstances to make an excellent living from his misfortune. This is good, solid capitalism at work. I like it.”

Flint, you and I have discussed this before, so I won’t belabor the point. The whole reason I got involved in this line of discussion is because of Ain’t’s claim that Darrell Scott was one of the ‘squeaky-clean good guys for God,’ or words to that effect. Something about my initial research gave me a bad feeling, so I went farther. The farther I go, the worse Mr. Scott looks.

The main problem I have with Mr. Scott is that he does appear – at this point – to be breaking Federal law. Now, we might get our proof, and we might find out that he really is running a 501(c(3). If so, then he’s not breaking the law on that score. However, even if that is the case, I’m interested in seeing how much money he is bringing in, because I don’t think he’s making as little as he claims. I believe that he may be using his claimed goal to fool credulous people and bring in money.

I think that’s where you and I diverge, Flint. I don’t think that misleading people for money falls under the rubric of “capitalism.” If Scott were honest about his goals, status and income, and could still talk people out of money, then more power to him. But if he’s lying, concealing and hiding in order to get money, then (to my mind) he falls under the category of confidence men, swindlers and dinnertime telemarketers.

We’re trying to find out which group Scott truly belongs to.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), March 22, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ