Petition for Censure of Keeperx

[allthatwhichis]

Ok somebody start a poll,

Two choices

Steve Goes

or

Keeperx gets admonished.



Your call.
PL as a group has 24 hours to make a decision.
Steve

Steve, dammit man, I will lose a bit of the mountain of respect I have for you if you leave because of his shit... Make the poll and of course you have my vote, but damn, I had to look up what admonish means.

Alec... Shit man, take an example from me; I only talk shit to lighten the mood or to profess my lack of knowledge on a subject. I invite the ridicule to myself; not focus it on someone else. These are the keys to productive shit talking and shit talking is truly only acceptable when productive. Otherwise it is mainly negative and do we rally need more negativity in the world?

[mophead]

and when people ask questions he is quick to google and post other people's work,

Have to agree with that; here's the puddin' in the pic.

As far as *I* am concerned, anytime i ask a question, Steve is there to help. Either on board or in PM. He doesn't always spoon feed, nor is it asked for, but a good solid push in the right direction. Never have i got a copy/paste, but then again i google first, most of the time.



Alec: Right now would be the time for you to either man-up and work this out or dust off your sandals.....

The forum as a whole shouldn't have to be the "bad guys that hate us because we think different and they kicked me out too....."

Fix it, Alec.

[mixedgas]

This is going to get handled in a far different way then I expected.

Steve.

[danielbriggs]

Steve = Stay on PL

Dan

[gottaluvlasers]

this is a damn shame!

while i never really had any personal issues with keeperx, i can see where people would get rubbed the wrong way by him.

steve, you, by far are one of the more respected "elders" of this forum. (i dont mean elders as in age, elders as in experience, knowledge and expertise).

maybe alec (i think thats his name) should be suspended maybe? if what he has done or has *been* doing is that bad, than he should be punished.

im a believer in second chances. maybe he just needs to chill a little. i dont know. the drama he has caused is obviously ruffling feathers (rightfully so) of some members here and i think it should be handled.

i think doc jumped in about the "clique" factor here (sorry if it wasnt doc, im pretty sure it was though). i actually think the complete opposite. whether it is now or when i FIRST became a member here there was NEVER any sort of feeling like an "outsider" with anyone or any "group" here! i find that pretty surprising for anyone to say. i think this is one of the most accepting and relatively drama and flaming free forum i have ever been a part of. but doc, i respect your oipion. i dont agree with it, but if thats what you feel or see, than its obviously respected.

i dont like when ANYONE starts chiming in on threads just to throw an answer out there. that is annoying and i DEF do see keeper doing that a lot. but again, being banned for *that* i dont agree with. the bashing CDRH and ILDA and everything else of any sort of value and authority to us laserists...THAT i *DO* have a problem with.

theres ALWAYS someone who bashes authority or bashes the guys on top. and that ALWAYS seemed stupid to me! ESPECIALLY in our field of lasers, we need ALL the *GOOD* publicity and *GOOD* groups and *GOOD* people on our side to advance our art form. this industry is WAAAAAAAAY too small to have someone bashing the very things that 99% of us believe in and hold close to us. ESPECIALLY on this forum becasue this forum is WIDELY becoming VERY VERY popular and all it takes is some lurkers to read unsupported theories or unsubstantiated opinions of "Conspiracy theorists" to give someone a bad taste in their mouths.

i actually got a show about 2 months ago becasue someone was looking for "laser shows in CT." and they came across this forum....my signature line and read some posts of mine then saw my ILDA membership icon. they told me on the phone that they SPECIFICALLY hired me BECASUE of this forum (the post was the one about the accreditation process with ILDA) and then the reference to ILDA website.

so i tihnk we ALL need to really think about this and what is typed here. keeperx....not too sure what is gonna happen to you, but i hope you learned a lesson. (maybe not, dont know...?)

a high post count doesnt mean youre a valuable asset to this community. look at adam (buffo) he has like 3,000 posts. and he doesnt contribute *ANYTHING* important EVER!!!! LOL YES...obviously a joke! needed a tension breaker in here somewhere.

steve...i applaud your public distaste of this gentleman. you handled in my opinion, very properly. no bashing, no flaming and to the point and for the "FORUM" members to decide. i respect that.

my vote (if there was one) would be for maybe a suspension. no posts, no PM's, no nothing.

thats my 2 cents.

-Marc

<<Group hug time!!>>

[QUAZAR]

Steve, if keeperx is bugging you so much, just add him to your "ignore list" (under user CP). Then you wont see any of his posts.

[dchammonds]

I agree!

[mixedgas]

Steve, if keeperx is bugging you so much, just add him to your "ignore list" (under user CP). Then you wont see any of his posts.

relax folks, I'm gonna let Admin do his thing.

hopefully it will never reach these proportions again.

I do have to read the posts, I'm a good engineer type (for the record I am NOT a PE in the state of Ohio, the new law says you have to say that) and I can't stand to see people get hurt or lose money.

STEVE

[buffo]

Steve, if keeperx is bugging you so much, just add him to your "ignore list" (under user CP). Then you wont see any of his posts.

The problem is that some of Alec's recent posts are downright dangerous, but he doesn't realize it. Remember the thread that dealt with connecting a Lexel 95 head to a Lexel 88 power supply? Ever wonder why Steve was so upset about Alec's answer? I mean, it seemed like a fairly straightforward problem, no? But read the rest of the thread and you'll learn quite a lot. (I did anyway...)

Turns out that Steve is right: there are several serious issues that could occur, and none of them would be immediately apparent just from looking at the schematic. (Such as the fact that when you push the 88 PSU hard, the first thing that drops is the cathode filament voltage, and that causes the cathode to cool and sag, which can ruin the tube.) I promise you that Alec wasn't thinking about that when he posted his reply. Not many people (apart from Laserman532 and MixedGas and a few others) would know that... I sure as hell didn't think of it, but then again, I didn't offer any advice on the subject because I *KNEW* it was out of my depth.

Alec, on the other hand, sees nothing wrong with checking google really quick, and just posting the first thing he sees. Even worse, he doesn't list his source. That way it makes him look like he really knows what he's talking about. Doug (Mophead) pointed this out perfectly with his side-by-side picture of the Wiki entry for Trojan Horse and Alec's reply to me in the thread about the Malware that is included in the Chinese cracked copy of Mamba Black. He tried to sound like he understood everything about trojan horses, and even based the rest of his argument on the weight of that alleged experience, when in fact he was only parroting the Wiki entry. You can get away with that a few times, but sooner or later you'll get it wrong, and when you do, someone else gets lousy advice and it hurts them.

Then you have Alec's advice to issue a "sales warning/disclaimer" when selling diode modules, because that will clear you of any responsibility with the CDRH. This is completely false, and also reflects quite poorly on the forum as a whole - as if our attitude is so flippiant that we'd consider it OK to try to weasle out of the CDRH regs like that.

Given the recent attention over at LPF with regard to selling laser pointers without a product report (among other infractions), I promise you that Spec does not want any reason for the CDRH to start digging around on PL looking for pointer jockeys that flaunt the law. Alec's post is like a big red sign saying "I'm over here, and I dare you to send me a letter like the one you sent to Burning Lasers."

So ignoring his posts doesn't help the signal to noise ratio on the forum unless *everyone* does it. And the people that are least likely to ignore him (new members that aren't aware of the history) are also the ones that are most likely to be harmed by his bad advice.

This is why it's got to stop.

relax folks, I'm gonna let Admin do his thing.
hopefully it will never reach these proportions again.

I hope you are correct Steve. I tried to do something about it twice before, and failed utterly both times. Perhaps Spec can be more persuasive with Alec than I was.

Adam

[mixedgas]

Why am I so angry about bad advice, Here is why:

This is long, and its from a different government agency, but it using the same rules of seizure and fines that CDRH can use. See if you find any mention of a trial or due process here, or a day in court. See who decided the fine, not a judge, a administrator from the executive branch of the government. Do note the field strength readings here mean only a few 10s of watts from a low building, this is not a 10 Kilowatt FM station on a 1000 foot tower.

This is why Alec's disclaimer idea would get someone in serious trouble, and this is the steps in the process, a warning letter, maybe a visit, then BANG, you owe money. The next step, if you do not pay, is a US attorney starting a criminal case or moving for seizure of your home or car or business to pay the bills.

Disclaimer or not, if you followed his advice, you may have sold a adulterated, unapproved , product with without due regard for the law.

HERE is what happens. The FCC database is easier to get data from then CDRH, so I used this example, and you can find more here. Please note the FCC went out of their way to give these people a chance. Please also note it is nearly impossible for a small organization to get a FCC license in a urban area, so a lot of folks just say "aw chuck it" and do it anyways. Its a similar argument, why should I wait two months for a variance. In the RF case, It often leads to spurious signals in the bands used for public safety and aeronautical communications. Why is this important? You ride the airplane, and it is the ambulance you need that may not hear the dispatch.
PL and SPEC personally, cannot take a possible hit for aiding and abeting.
PL can however, use Kudos for helping people do things legally.

If you need the short version, read paragraph 12 of the included quote.

You can read more here. Look for "NAL"s in the action table

http://www.diymedia.net/fccwatch/eadtable08.htm

QUOTE

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Released: June 18, 2008

By the District Director, New York Office, Northeast Region, Enforcement
Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that Alexander Kissi ("Kissi") apparently willfully and repeatedly
violated Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
("Act"), by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on the frequency
96.5 MHz in Bronx, New York. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b)
of Act, that Kissi is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount
of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

II. BACKGROUND

2. On February 25, 2008, the New York Office of the FCC's Enforcement
Bureau received a complaint from a licensed radio broadcaster of an
unlicensed radio station operating on 96.5 MHz in Bronx, NY. The
complainant believed that the unlicensed transmissions were emanating
from 3944 White Plains Road, Bronx, NY.

3. On February 28, 2008, a Commission agent, using a mobile
direction-finding vehicle, monitored the frequency 96.5 MHz in Bronx,
New York. The agent observed a radio broadcast on 96.5 MHz and
identified the source of the transmissions as an FM broadcasting
antenna mounted on the roof of a two story building at 3944 White
Plains Road, Bronx, NY 10466. The agent took field strength
measurements and determined that the signals being broadcast exceeded
the limits for operation under Part 15 of the Commission's Rules
("Rules") and therefore required a license. An agent searched
Commission databases and found no evidence of a Commission
authorization for this operation on 96.5 MHz in Bronx, New York.

4. On March 1, 2008, Commission agents, using a mobile direction-finding
vehicle, monitored the frequency 96.5 MHz in Bronx, New York. The
agents observed a radio broadcast on 96.5 MHz and identified the
source of the transmissions as an FM broadcasting antenna mounted on
the roof of 3944 White Plains Road. The agent took field strength
measurements and determined that the signals being broadcast exceeded
the limits for operation under Part 15 of the Rules and therefore
required a license. An agent searched Commission databases and found
no evidence of a Commission authorization for this operation on 96.5
MHz in Bronx, New York.

5. After completing the field strength measurements on March 1, 2008, the
agents returned to 3944 White Plains Road, entered the building, and
proceeded to the second floor. The agents spoke to a man who worked
there, and a woman who was doing a live radio broadcast from a small
broadcast studio. In response to agents' questions about the radio
station, both the man and the woman stated that Alexander Kissi was in
charge of the station, but that Kissi was not there at the time. While
in the studio, the agents observed signs on the wall that read "Life
Sat Radio," "96.5 FM," and listed Kissi as a contact. The agents
traced the audio cables from the studio to another room on the second
floor, where they observed a Ptek Model FM150E transmitter, set to 46
watts according to the transmitter's LCD display. The transmitter's
output was connected to a coaxial cable which ran out a window to an
antenna on the roof. The agents provided the woman a hand-written
Notice of Unlicensed Operation ("NOUO") addressed to both Kissi and
the woman. The NOUO warned that operation of the unlicensed radio
station on 96.5 MHz violated 47 U.S.C. S: 301; outlined the potential
penalties for operating an unlicensed station in violation of 47
U.S.C. S: 301, including seizure of the equipment, fines and
imprisonment; and directed the operator of the station to terminate
operation of the unlicensed station immediately. The woman signed the
NOUO and stated that she would give it to Kissi.

6. On March 3, 2008, the New York Office sent a NOUO, by First Class and
Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, to Kissi at 3944 White Plains
Road, Bronx, NY 10466. The NOUO warned Kissi that operation of the
unlicensed radio station on 96.5 MHz violated 47 U.S.C. S: 301;
outlined the potential penalties for operating an unlicensed station
in violation of 47 U.S.C. S: 301, including seizure of the equipment,
fines and imprisonment; and directed Kissi to terminate operation of
the unlicensed station immediately. The NOUO offered Kissi ten days to
reply.

7. On March 6, 2008, a Commission agent spoke to Kissi by telephone
regarding the unlicensed station on 96.5 MHz at 3944 White Plains
Road. Kissi stated that he takes full responsibility for operation of
the station and that the station will not come back on the air. Kissi
also stated that he received the NOUO mailed on March 3, 2008 and that
he plans to respond. The New York Office has not received a reply to
the NOUO.

8. A review of New York Office records (Case EB-02-NY-209) revealed that
a NOUO was hand-delivered to Kissi on September 7, 2002, and another
NOUO was mailed to Kissi on September 9, 2002 for his unlicensed
operation of an FM broadcast station on 87.9 MHz at 3944 White Plains
Road.

III. DISCUSSION

9. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or
repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions
of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of
the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation or order issued
by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture
penalty. The term "willful" as used in Section 503(b) of the Act has
been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are
committed knowingly. The term "repeated" means the commission or
omission of such act more than once or for more than one day.

10. Section 301 of the Act states that no person shall use or operate any
apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals
by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with
the Act and with a license granted under the provisions of the Act. On
February 28 and March 1, 2008, agents determined that an unlicensed
radio station was operating on the frequency 96.5 MHz from 3944 White
Plains Road, Bronx, NY 10466. During an inspection of the station on
March 1, 2008, two individuals at the station reported to agents that
Kissi is responsible for the station's operation and Kissi
subsequently admitted to an agent that he is responsible for the
station. Because Kissi took full responsibility for operation of the
station and because Kissi was issued two warning letters in 2002 for
his unlicensed operation at the same location, we find that the
violation was willful. The unlicensed operation continued for more
than one day; therefore the violation was repeated.

11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Kissi apparently
willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating
radio transmission equipment on 96.5 MHz in Bronx, NY on February 28
and March 1, 2008, without a Commission authorization.

12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment
of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines
("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the
base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of
authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect
to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history of prior
offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
require. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80, and
the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Kissi is
apparently liable for a $10,000 forfeiture.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311,
0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Alexander Kissi is hereby
NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violation of Section 301 of the
Act.

14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Alexander Kissi SHALL PAY
the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.

15. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101. Payment[s] by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For
payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be
submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account
number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters
"FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full
payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial
Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations
Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with
any questions regarding payment procedures. Louis shall also send
electronic notification on the date said payment is made to
NER-Response@fcc.gov.

16. The response, if any, must be mailed to Federal Communications
Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Northeast Region, New York Office, 201
Varick Street, Suite 1151, New York, NY 10014, and must include the
NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. An electronic copy shall be
sent to NER-Response@fcc.gov

17. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and
objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
financial documentation submitted.

18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, and regular mail, to Alexander Kissi at his address of
record.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Daniel W. Noel

District Director