Radio Free Registry

[alan hall]

I did and I saw.

[S.J.Szabo]

Come again?

I've heard of obtuse, but I'll be darned if I see serious dialog there.

[alan hall]

Sorry, I was answering your earlier question.

Now re: Question: Why shouldn't/can't the Club be run in strict compliance with all Federal and State regulations?

It may well be...the interpretation of what those require seems to vary.

Now will I get a thoughtful or a snarky response? I fear the playground responses you refer to seem as, or more, prevalent here as they are on the registry site. Or maybe Joel is doing his CJ impression.

[S.J.Szabo]

Mr.Hall:

No matter; they were the same question.

Well. I think it safe to assume you haven't read them enough to answer with assurance. OK.

Having become conversant with said regulations, I can assure you that they are very clear. Anyone who tells you they are not clear either doesn't know them or is not comfortable with the truth.

However, let's stick to the moral imperative part; Should the Registry comply with all applicable Fed and State regs, yes or no?

[alan hall]

I must admit I am not that conversant with all the applicable regs, but I do recall reading what you listed of them a while back (probably a good while back since this has been going on for years!) and I recall not interpreting them in the same way you did. So the answer to your question is yes, but I am not ready to say it is not being done as I don't think the requirements are as clear as you wish them to be, or perhaps they are clear but your interpretation is not correct (or perhaps it is). I hope you can continue to have adult conversations, although I fear we will end up agreeing to disagree.
Alan

[356JAGER]

Sorry, I was answering your earlier question.

Now re: Question: Why shouldn't/can't the Club be run in strict compliance with all Federal and State regulations?

It may well be...the interpretation of what those require seems to vary.

Now will I get a thoughtful or a snarky response? I fear the playground responses you refer to seem as, or more, prevalent here as they are on the registry site. Or maybe Joel is doing his CJ impression.

Alan,
Firstly, the State and Federal regulations are very unambiguous, and easily understood. Not following them isn't a 'different interpretation', it's simply violating the law. Trying to keep it simple here for Jim and the other trustees who, regardless of their previously professed roles as managers of multi billion dollar companies, are now just simple guys who are confused by big words and anything more lengthy than a single sentence.
If sticking to the facts is being 'snarky' then snarky I am. I must confess my pride in being unable to mimic CJ and his penchant for patent nonsense. For a moment I thought you were something other than another troll stirring the pot over here to muddy the view, but sadly I seem to have been badly mistaken.

Cheers,
Joel

[alan hall]

Joel, Thank you for proving my point.
Alan

[S.J.Szabo]

Vic Skirmants
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry lawsuit update, March 27, 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:09 pm

Rosemary/Bill; as usual, you are completely full of it!
Vince, thank you for your explanation; it was perfect, easy to understand, although not easy enough for the dimwits.

Ah, Mr.Skirmants:

Erudite as usual. You and Mr.Murray work so hard to keep the bar set so low over there. It must be taxing digging that hole so deep.

However, it is unclear which dimwits you're talking about. Certainly not the folks over here, as we all know sadly uninformed baloney when we see it, so one can only assume you are referring to those on the Reg. site that believe whatever nonsense you two dish out.

But enough of the friendly banter, so how about we try to raise that bar a bit, just for fun.

Question: Do you think it's in the best interests of the Club for it to be run in strict compliance with all applicable Fed. and State regulations?

Hint: It's a yes or no question. Pick one.

[S.J.Szabo]

Well, now we're making progress.

We both agree that the Club should comply with all applicable Fed and State regulations that govern the conduct of a 501(c)(7) Social Club.

Now, I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of these regulations.

For example: How do you interpret the Fed regs that establish that "commingling" (which is further defined as face-to-face interaction between the members) is expected to be the Primary Activity pursued by a Social Club.

Now, keep in mind that the Fed does not acknowledge the following as legitimate pursuits of "commingling"

1. A Club magazine
2. A website

So I ask you; is the Club in compliance with this regulation?

[S.J.Szabo]

Mr.Hall:

Of course, if you like, perhaps you would like to suggest a regulation or two about which you are unsure and we could talk about them.

Just in case, I will offer another reg. to discuss:

First, do you understand the concept of Insider Contracting?

If so, I would ask what is confusing about the fact that non-profits are prohibited from engaging in insider contracting. The idea here is that there is a very basic and strict prohibition against any of the Club's income "inuring to the benefit" of a member or members of the Club.

This means that no member should pocket the Club's income, either directly or indirectly (say, thru a company a member owns that contracts with the Club to provide goods or services).

Do you see any instance of violation of these regulations at the Registry?

[alan hall]

Mr. Szabo,
We have gotten quite far afield from my initial question which wondered why Steve didn't pursue reviewing what was offered before resorting to an expensive lawsuit, but you may have legitimate concerns. I am going to have to do some research before I get back to you...but I will get back to you. I gather the crux of your concern is if the club is operating correctly as a 401-c7 as defined by the IRS.

In the meantime try to maintain an adult approach to this disagreement with the registry and hopefully avoid the name calling. As I said I will get back to you. I don't recall if we can use PM's on this site, but if we can you can, PM me some links to what you feel are the pertinent requirements.

[S.J.Szabo]

Adam Wright
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry lawsuit update, March 27, 2015
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:16 pm

"EVERYONE STOP TALKING!!!"

""


Why, Capt.UnOb, I never would have thought you were such a neat-freak. Sadly, sweeping everything under the rug will solve nothing. Neither will pretending that there are no issues to "discuss", even if it is only swapping untruths.

You wouldn't be so dismissive of the law if the IRS were knocking on your door.

So are us idiots to conclude that you feel above the law that the rest of the world must live by? Capt.Unobtanium a scofflaw? Say it isn't so.

It may be "just a car club", but like it or not, it is required to comply with the laws of the land, even when it's inconvenient. That's how rule of law works. For everyone.

[S.J.Szabo]

Don't forget the State of Ohio.

For reference sake, that's 501(c)(7) Social Club

I'll be happy to post some links in hopes that more members will educate themselves about the real issues of import for the Club. However, I will note that I just started with Google and a little determination.

"try to maintain an adult approach"

Gosh Dad, I'll try. Of course, the admonition would be, as you have noted, just as appropriate on the Reg. site... Gonna post it there too?

With the occasional exception of a little editorial license, the only name calling I endorse is that a spade is a spade. Beyond that, I leave the heavy lifting of the dirty stuff to the guys on the Reg. site; they consistently display such an aptitude for it, and there is little doubt they'd be at a loss for words (or thoughts) without it.

[S.J.Szabo]

"Gonna post it there too?"

Ooops! Too late.

They've locked the threads on the Lawsuit over at the Reg.

Now, it surely cannot be because of the rowdiness and name-calling or this would have happened much sooner.

One is left to conclude that someone got nervous about the dim light of reason that was starting to creep into some of the posts.

Can't have that, now can we.

Of course, I 'spose it's possible that someone realized that all the inanity and mean-spirited and low-down foolishness was giving the casual reader the right impression.

I suppose it will all disappear soon. Too bad.

[356JAGER]

I believe they have locked them because this thread has been reopened and there is now logical response to the nonsensical claims being proffered by the usual suspects on that site. Better to remain silent than to be exposed.

Alan,
Glad I could prove your point. Now if someone could just tell me what it is.

Cheers,
Joel