Re: Installers in Kentucky beware of HB-41

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FDTEj.12$Dv5.10@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:DjOEj.7715$Q52.4840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Yes I do.....and.....your online store was never the target of the DBPR
> > investigation on you....and....you know this.
>
> The target was me personally.  The shooter was your disgusting pal.  They
gave
> their best shot at stopping me from selling online in Florida and they
lost.
> Get over it, moron.
>
> > You really should comment on Florida State Statute. You continually want
to
> > ignore all other parts of the Statute except what you only want to use
to
> > your advantage. I will do your homework for you. I said before I
wouldn't do
> > that, but I am feeling generous this morning.
>
> The only part of the licensing law that matters to me is the part that
says I
> don't need a license in Florida because my business is not subject to
state
> licensing.
>
> > Chapter 489 Part II State Statute (revised 6/2007)
> >
> > 489.505(27) "Monitoring" means to receive electrical or electronic
signals
> > originating from any structure within the state or outside the state...
>
> According to the statute:
>
> "A person shall not have committed the act of monitoring if:
> (d)  The person is not employed in a proprietary monitoring facility, as
> defined by the National Fire Protection Association pursuant to rule
adopted
> under chapter 633."

If you are going to try and defend your comments by quoting the Statute, why
don't you include the whole thing to follow so it is clear Robert? Why
didn't you include (a) (b) and (c) to paint the entire picture. You always
do that. It doesn't make you look smart. It looks like you are trying to
cover up something.
>
> There's another thing you invariably fail to mention.  During the time
when I
> offered monitoring services I never offered it to or from structures
within
> Florida.  The central station my DIY clients used in those years was in
> Massachussetts and my clients were all located outside the state of
Florida.
> The DBPR agent noted this in his discussion with me.  He looked at the
facts
> and determined that there was nothing illegal going on.  He recommended
> dismissing the matter and the AG agreed.

What is the definition of an investigator? Now does that equal a prosecutor.
Comments like the above are making yourself look silly.

 Your crooked pal has lied
> consistently about this, claiming there was a big disagreement but we all
know
> that's not true.

Wrong again. That was me that told you about the disagreement, and I don't
care what you believe to be true or not true since you weren't there.

 Your guy tried to hurt my business and failed.  In the
> process he made a fool of himself by posting a lot of foul, personal
insults
> online where hs superiors could read them.

He had only one superior and that was the Govenor. You don't know much about
Board appoinments either I guess.

> > 489.518(2)(b) Persons who perform only monitoring at an out of state
> > location are not required to comply with back ground check requirements.
> >
> > Sounds like the out of state monitoring center needs to be licensed in
> > Florida to me. You, however, probably have your own spin to it.
>
> You ignore the fact that no Florida premises were monitored.  You already
know
> this because we had the same discussion several years ago.  Posting the
same
> statement now is tantamount to lying.

My, my you are so defensive over this situation. That usually implies, even
though you didn't get prosecuted that you were caught. You did, however stop
offering monitoring for compensation, didn't you? You know it wasn't the
online store that was the target of the complaint because, yes, you are
right (are you happy now) that online stores are exempt. It was what
additional activities you were doing that you got reported for. You can deny
it to this group all you want. The NG did ask you to prove your position by
posting the complaint. I must have missed your reply post. As far as your
defensive comment in the post above goes, all I did was correct you on the
fact that out of state companies need to be licensed so that other folks
would not be misled by your comment. I never mentioned your past history
with the DBPR so why did you bring it up.As usual you added in an exemption
to support your comments but the exemption, if you read it is for
"proprietary central stations. Do you know what a proprietary central
station is Robert? If so why don't you give us an example of one. And then
explain how that equates to being an out of state central station, as you
said, does not need to be licensed. Your curve ball didn't curve Robert. I
know from the past that some think this stuff is boring but this is a thread
about State Statute. "U"nfortunately, in one breath, Robert still thinks he
"U"nderstands the Statute and will argue about it at the drop of a hat. One
the other hand he says he only knows the part that his online store is
exempt. He is right, his store is exempt, as long as online sales is all he
is doing. If he is doing anything else, that is defined as needing a license
as outlined in the Statute, well that is his decision. I still think that
blaming Mugford for filing the complaint against him is as hilarious as him
thinking Frank is a counter clerk.