Re: Florida Statute According to RLB

[shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net (Si Ballenger)]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:03:04 -0500, "Bob Worthy"
<securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Post the link where you read your interpetation and I'll show you where it
>changed. Since you posted the wrong statute to begin with, I have know idea
>where to start.  I don't know where you would have read it. As far as RBL
>and the enforcement goes, keep up with the thread. I have already said, the
>state wouldn't do anything on their own. He stepped on someone's toes a year
>ago and got investigated. He slipped by on that one. They must, by law,
>investigate complaints, but he is really not a threat to the health, safety
>and welfare of the public as stated in the statute to be a big concern to
>them. In other words he isn't worth the time or money.  His BBB report may
>come to their attention by wat of a consumer complaint. Again, I don't give
>two rats asses about his activities, just his over inflated ego. I have been
>asked to stop since it is boring. I don't if it was his activities or his
>ego that is boring, but either way I heard what they said.

All the pertinant Florida statutes I read were on line, and
appear to still be there at the below link. I used the search
function here which found what I needed at the time. You admit
that RLB has been investigated and the investigation appaerntly
found nothing. If the state ignores actual violations, they would
be assuming part of any liability that might arise as a result of
ignoring the violation, which I doubt they intentionally do. What
RLB did years ago to upset "the business", as best as I remember,
was to publish equipment prices which showed how much "the
business" was over charging customers for the equipment they were
purchasing. It really upset the "good old boy" alarm dealers that
were tripple pricing the equipment they sold to customers.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm