Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Wed, 27 Jun 2007

Here they are. Nola, Ellen, and Daryl are in the middle of a five
day suspension.
George
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: "Scott Burow"
To:
Date sent: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:14:49 -0500
Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Notice RE: DISCUSS LIST

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

As I mentioned in my last email, I've been contacted by Rootsweb
Senior Advisors regarding the behavior of both candidates and members
on this list. The actions over the last week and this weekend were
intolerable and an embarrassment to this project. It resulted in a
number of complaints to Rootsweb and their staff.

It was the recommendation of several at the upper levels that this
list be closed and it came very close to occurring. At least one of
the Rootsweb Senior Staff and I have intervened to keep this list
open. For all it's headaches sometimes, this list does serve a
valuable purpose.

However, keeping it open is not without cost.

First, Rootsweb (and the entities above) are no longer willing to
maintain an archive of this list, and the archives should end today.

Second, you all are being asked to police yourselves. Keep your
comments focused upon issues valid to the project, and avoid the
negative carping, fingerpointing, and bickering and keep the
backbiting to yourselves. Questions can be asked and answered without
all the extra baggage an insinuations.

It goes without saying that threats of any type, whether directly
stated or implied, are inappropriate.

Third, if you cannot police yourselves, the moderators will police
you.

These are the rules:

1. Any post that, in the opinion of the moderator(s), is
inflammatory, derogatory, demeaning, or otherwise inappropriate will
be subject to an immediate period of moderation of 5 to 10 days at
the
moderator(s) discretion. This applies to all - candidate or not.

2. There will be no warnings and there is no appeal of the
moderation.

3. Any second offense that would result in a second period of
moderation will earn that poster a 30 day ban from discuss.

4. Any third offense results in a permanent ban from the discuss
list.

5. Any post that questions or complains about a moderation that has
taken place will secure for that poster a 5 day moderation period.


These rules will be enforced. This is not a first amendment
limitation. Just like in the 'real world' you can say what you want,
but in doing so you bear the responsibility and the consequences.
These are the consequences. There are limits to free speech in the
real world, too. This is nothing more than a question of decorum.
Any member is free to post here, and free to post their opinion on
the
issues of the day.

We simply won't be doing it in the manner that some of you have
previously enjoyed. If you do not believe that you can live by these
rules, there's no discussion necessary - just a one word message to
the list of "unsubscribe" will take care of it.

The bottom line is that if you don't police yourselves, and the
moderator(s) can't maintain civility on this list - this list will
become unavailable by a decision made far and above the level of the
members, the moderators, the Advisory Board, or the NC of the
USGenWeb
Project.

This is what some of you, by your actions, have brought upon
everyone.
This is what I had to do to keep this list open and available for
discussion.

Shall we try to discuss without the fangs for a while, or just
surrender the list to anarchy and let it be closed. It's your
choice.


Scott Burow
NC - USGenWeb Project

Monday, September 17, 2007

Sept. 17 2007

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:57:53 -0600
From: "W. David Samuelsen"
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet offer (moveing pages off of
rootsweb
To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com


Teresa,

no. still has to make annual reports irrevelant of how much taken in.
The one organiztion I am member of, had to straighten out with IRS
becalse the last treasurer didn't file annual reports and the income was
NOT even 1000 dollars! 3 years worth of missing annual reports. IRS sent
notice about this to then current president (had elections last
Saturday) and he had to get somebody else to go with him to the IRS
regional office to straighten everything out.

Amount is irrevelant, once listed as non-proft tax-exempt.

David Samuelsen

merope wrote:
> I think that database only lists nonprofits that have to file annual
> reports. USGenNet doesn't make enough money to require that.
>
> -Teresa
>
> On 9/17/07, Donal O'Kelly wrote:
>> Say what?
>>
>> A 501-c-3 corporation named USGenNet is not listed on the government
>> database of non profit tax exempt corporations is "trivial?"
>>
>> If that is trivial, what is searious?
>>
>> If registered, under what name is it registered?
>>
>> donkelly


Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:26:48 -0400
From: "Joyce G. Reece"
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet offer (moveing pages off of
rootsweb
To:


In the majority any non-profit -- 501-c-3 or any other status will have BOTH
state and federal exemption. One must file for BOTH.

Especially in states where there is an income tax.


Joyce Gaston Reece

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet offer (moveing pages off of
rootsweb


> Well then TAKE the ID number that USGenNet provides on its website
> and go check it out, for petessake. Don't just keep posting questions
> that sound a LOT more like inuendo than genuine questions.
>
> -Sandy
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Donal O'Kelly wrote:
>
>> I will take no such action.
>>
>> I think many of us just want to know if it is legitimate or
>> not.....actually
>> is what it seems and is touted to be with no hidden or unexpected
>> shoals.
>>
>> We all know how government controlled identity marks like C, TM, R,
>> SM etc.
>> can be claimed and used even without legal ownership.
>>
>> donkelly
>
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:28:00 -0400
From: "Joyce G. Reece"
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Donations and reporting to irs
To:


Absolutely Deb, thanks


Joyce Gaston Reece

----- Original Message -----
From: "Debbie"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Donations and reporting to irs


> IF they are a non-profit.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joyce G. Reece"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Donations and reporting to irs
>
>
>> If the donar wishes to use the amt given in their tax return they have to
>> be
>> given a receipt/statement from the recipient.
>>
>> Filing tax reports with the IRS is far different than what we usual tax
>> payers is required to do. Many non-profits choose to have audits...which
>> cost a bundle, so they have affirmation that their operation is on the up
>> and up. The good news about that is if one can locate an accountant that
>> will do audits for low or no cost they can do quite well with them.
>>
>>
>> Joyce Gaston Reece
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "margie daniels"
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:51 PM
>> Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Donations and reporting to irs
>>
>>
>>> Teresa,
>>>
>>> Unless something has changed doesn't the person who receives the
>>> donations on behalf of USGENWEB have do declare it on their IRS
>>> returns?
>>>
>>> Does anyone know what the current statue is?
>>>
>>> What about state income if there is no incorporation.
>>>
>>> Won't donations have to be declared by the individual as income for
>>> both state and federal if a individual for instance the NC accepts
>>> donations.
>>>
>>> Margie


Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:01:05 -0600
From: "W. David Samuelsen"
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet ?
To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <46EF3F71.2040808@sampubco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed



Sandy wrote:
> Well, folks, this is truly _not_ rocket science. Since USGenNet even
> *provides* its Idaho organization ID number (C 124878), it's a little
> difficult to understand how any question arose about their nonprofit
> incorporation status.

State and IRS are two very different animals.

State authorize you to collect. IRS authorize the tax deductions. The
state can not authorize tax deductions. IRS can not authorize collection.

Get it?

David Samuelsen



Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:28:52 -0400
From: "Joyce G. Reece"
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet ?
To:


If you have the state id # you won't get to the federal with it....they're
usually different

Joyce Gaston Reece

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donal O'Kelly"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet ?


The number also produced: "no business entity found". So it is not just that
easy.
I think a few others also tried that search.
donkelly


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet ?



Guess you just "missed" that Idaho organizational ID Number which
USGenNet hides right there on its web page, along with its date of
incorporation:
http://www.usgennet.org/

.......which reads:
"USGenNet is a Nonprofit Idaho Corporation (C 124878) and was
incorporated July 17, 1998."

That being the only number you need to run the search on the Idaho
Secretary of State's website to pull up the full incorporation records.
I didn't have difficulty spotting it myself, but maybe that's just me.

-Sandy


On Sep 17, 2007, at 5:49 PM, Donal O'Kelly wrote:

> No Alice. I was never informed that the legal name was not USGenNet.
> Thank you
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alice Gayley"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet ?
>
>
> Don,
>
> As was indicated in the earlier post which contained all of the
> incorporation information about U. S. Gen Net, the full title of the
> organization is the United States Genealogy Network. Have you tried
> searching on the full and complete name?
>
> Alice Gayley
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donal O'Kelly"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 5:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet ?
>
>
> Still returns for USGenNet: "No Business Entities Found"
>
> donkelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 2:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] UsGenNet ?
>
>
> Well, folks, this is truly _not_ rocket science. Since USGenNet even
> *provides* its Idaho organization ID number (C 124878), it's a little
> difficult to understand how any question arose about their nonprofit
> incorporation status.
>
> Try this - from the Idaho Secretary of State's online database:
>
> UNITED STATES GENEALOGY NETWORK, INC. [View Details]
> Type of Business: CORPORATION, GENERAL NON PROFIT
> Status: GOODSTANDING, ANREPT SENT 01 May 2007
> State of Origin: IDAHO
> Date of Origination/Authorization: 17 Jul 1998
> Date of Last Annual Report: 06 Jul 2007
>
> Current Registered Agent:
> KRISTINA MARTIN
> 347 E CEDAR LN
> PRIEST RIVER, ID 83856
> Organizational ID / Filing Number: C124878
>
> current registered agent:
> KRISTINA MARTIN
> 347 E CEDAR LN
> PRIEST RIVER, ID 83856
>
> Plus links to tiff images of various documents, including annual
> reports through 2007.
> --------------
>
> This information is not the least bit difficult to find, but here are
> instructions on how to do it:
>
> All it takes is looking at the USGenNet web site:
> http://www.usgennet.org/
>
> and pulling the Idaho Corporation number provided: (C 124878)
>
> then going to the Idaho Secty of State's website:
> http://www.idsos.state.id.us/corp/corindex.htm
>
> and clicking on the link to: "Business Records Search"
>
> You don't even have to enter a SINGLE thing except on the line that
> says "Organizational ID / Filing Number:" plug in 124878.
>
> Voila! You'll get the complete file.
>
> -Sandy
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Donal O'Kelly wrote:
>
>> This is a partial list for Idaho Corporations with links to the rest.
>> donkelly
>>
>> Cabinet Mountain Calvary Fellowship Clark Fork ID
>> USA --
>> Camasnet Inc. Kooskia ID USA --
>> Camping Network for Kiddos Inc. Boise ID USA --
>> Catholic Migrant Farmworker Network Inc. Boise ID
>> USA --
>> Family Safety Network Inc. Driggs ID USA --
>> Grace Smith Keveren and Kenneth A. Keveren
>> Foundation Inc.
>> Twin Falls ID USA 4
>> Great Rift Rural Health Network (Until December
>> 2009)
>> American Fls ID USA --
>> Idaho Citizens Network Research and Education
>> Inc. Boise
>> ID USA --
>> Idaho Community Action Network Inc. Boise ID USA --
>> Idaho Womens Network Research and Education Fund
>> Inc.
>> Boise ID USA --
>> Intensive Family Preservation Services National
>> Network
>> Inc. Buhl ID USA --
>> International Missionary Network Nampa ID USA --
>> Living Independence Network Corp Boise ID USA --
>> Mentoring Network Inc. (Until June 2009 ) Nampa
>> ID USA --
>> National Challenged Homeschoolers Associated
>> Network Moyie
>> Springs ID USA --
>> North Idaho Community Action Network Inc.
>> Sandpoint ID
>> USA --
>> Palouse Water Conservation Network Inc. Moscow ID
>> USA --
>> Signet Ring Ministries Inc. (Until December 2009)
>> Hayden
>> ID USA --
>> Suicide Preventon Advaocacy Network Idaho Inc.
>> Boise ID
>> USA --
>> Treasure Valley Continuing Nursing Education
>> Network Boise
>> ID USA --
>> Valley Christian Aid Network Inc. Lewiston ID
>> USA --
>> Veterans Resource Network Inc. (Until December
>> 2009) Boise
>> ID USA --
>>
>>
>> ? Prev | 1-22 | Next ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:28:33 -0500
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Donations and reporting to irs
To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com



Joyce,

The only donations you can claim on your tax return are those made to
nonprofits tax exempt under 501(c)(3), which as far as I'm aware, the
USGenWeb Project is not. If the USGenWeb Project has obtained tax-
exempt status, I hope someone will correct me.

-Sandy


On Sep 17, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Joyce G. Reece wrote:

> If the donar wishes to use the amt given in their tax return they
> have to be
> given a receipt/statement from the recipient.
>
> Filing tax reports with the IRS is far different than what we usual
> tax
> payers is required to do. Many non-profits choose to have
> audits...which
> cost a bundle, so they have affirmation that their operation is on
> the up
> and up. The good news about that is if one can locate an
> accountant that
> will do audits for low or no cost they can do quite well with them.
>
>
> Joyce Gaston Reece
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "margie daniels"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:51 PM
> Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Donations and reporting to irs
>
>
>> Teresa,
>>
>> Unless something has changed doesn't the person who receives the
>> donations on behalf of USGENWEB have do declare it on their IRS
>> returns?
>>
>> Does anyone know what the current statue is?
>>
>> What about state income if there is no incorporation.
>>
>> Won't donations have to be declared by the individual as income for
>> both state and federal if a individual for instance the NC accepts
>> donations.
>>
>> Margie


Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sarah
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Refresh my memory
To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com


I know of who you are talking about and hypothetically what you are saying is true. The file in question should never have been online in the first place and secondly, it was unethical for the individual who d/L the information. Still, if the problem still exists on RW's FTP, then the problem still has not been corrected.

Sarah

Ellen Pack wrote:
At 01:54 PM 9/17/2007, Joan wrote:

>It is always possible on any server that during upgrades or maintenance,
>security issues can surface for a brief period. The real question
>is whether
>there is tech staff handy to correct any matters such as
>this quickly. If there
>were never any security loopholes that crop up from time to time I guess
>Microsoft would never need to issue any patches...stuff happens no
>matter where
>you are. The question is how quickly it is dealt with.

How about this hypothetical situation, having nothing to do with
server maintenance, etc....

A RW account holder places a document in his/her account directory
containing a list of pwds or contacts or anything else. The file is
unlinked, and is on the server as a backup.

Another RW account holder starts cruising directories, and finds this
particular directory, spots an interesting looking file, downloads
it, and opens it.

Would it have been a better idea not to store the file on the server? Yes.

Would it have been unethical for the "cruiser" to be looking around
and download the file?
Yes

Would it have been possible on most responsible hosting servers?
No. Better security prevails. Account holders are locked out of
other account directories. They don't even see them.

But it *is* possible on RW, and it has happened at least once that we
know of, quite possibly more.

Ellen