Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

$608,000 NAL Against Patrick Keane for Junk Fax Violations

Download Options

Released: October 23, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Patrick Keane
)
File No.: EB-12-TCD-00000305
a/k/a The Street Map Co., Accurate Map Co., Data )
World, Map World, Map Co.
)
NAL/Acct. No.: 201132170002
)
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
)
FRN: 0020318242
)
)

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted: October 22, 2012

Released: October 23, 2012

By the Commission:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find that Patrick Keane,
operating under various business names,1 apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section
227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), and Section
64.1200(a)(4) of the Commission’s rules, by delivering 38 unsolicited advertisements, or “junk faxes,” to
the telephone facsimile machines of 31 consumers.2 As discussed below, in the last two years, the
Commission has issued NALs against Mr. Keane for 62 additional junk fax violations. Based in part on
the fact that the Commission, with today’s NAL, has now taken enforcement action against Mr. Keane for
100 junk fax violations, we find that Mr. Keane is apparently liable for the maximum penalty permitted
by law for the apparent violations at issue in this NAL, and propose a forfeiture of $16,000 for each such
violation, for a total forfeiture in the amount of $608,000.

II.

BACKGROUND

2.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 was enacted by Congress to address
problems of abusive telemarketing, including junk faxes.3 Unsolicited faxes often impose unwanted
burdens on the called party, including costs of paper and ink, and making fax machines unavailable for
legitimate business messages. Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act makes it “unlawful for any person within
the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States . . . to


1 As set forth below, Mr. Keane appears to have used several different business names throughout the course of the
Commission’s investigation of his activities. Neither this NAL nor the Commission’s prior enforcement actions
against Mr. Keane attempt to identify each and every such name he has used, but the liability proposed in these
actions applies to Mr. Keane, regardless of the names he uses or has used.
2 See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4). See also Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005,
Report and Order and Third Order
on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 3787 (2006) (Junk Fax Prevention Act R&O), modified, 23 FCC Rcd 15059
(2008).
3 Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227).
See also Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-21, 119 Stat. 359 (2005) (Junk Fax Act).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine,
an unsolicited advertisement….”4
3.
On February 5, 2008, in response to consumer complaints alleging that The Street Map
Co. (Street Map) had faxed unsolicited advertisements, the Bureau sent a citation to Mr. Keane and Street
Map pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the Act.5 Despite the citation’s warning that subsequent violations
could result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures, the Commission continued to receive numerous
additional consumer complaints indicating that Mr. Keane, operating as Street Map, continued to send
junk faxes after the citation. Based on complaints concerning junk faxes received between November
2009 and November 2010, the Commission issued two Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
against Mr. Keane operating as Street Map and other names.6 The first NAL involved 11 faxes and
proposed a forfeiture of $55,000, while the second involved 51 faxes and proposed an additional
forfeiture of $315,500.7 The NALs named both Mr. Keane and Street Map, as well as other business and
trade names under which Mr. Keane has apparently operated.8 Mr. Keane did not respond to either NAL.
4.
Notwithstanding the citation and the two NALs, Mr. Keane has apparently continued to
send junk faxes, albeit using different names, or variations on the same name, such as “Accurate Map
Co.,” “Data World,” “Map World.,” and “Map Co.”9 None of these names—or the name “Street Map”—
appears to be registered as a fictitious or other trade name, and all appear to be traceable to Mr. Keane.
All of the faxes advertise laminated maps and share similar designs and layouts, including use of a
distinctive cartoon manikin touting the benefits of the maps. Moreover, all but one of the faxes at issue in
this NAL use the same street address and telephone numbers.10 This address (717 N. Union St.,
Wilmington, DE 19805) and the three telephone numbers (888-801-4409, 855-888-8842, and 855-321-
7755) are all assigned to Mr. Keane and billed either to Street Map (888-801-4409) or to another of his
business names, First State Map Company (855-888-8842 and 855-321-7755).11 In addition, the address


4 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). The prohibition is subject to certain exceptions, such as if the sender has an “established
business relationship” (EBR) with the recipient and the sender obtained the facsimile number from the recipient
through voluntary communication in the context of an EBR, or from a directory, advertisement, or website through
which the recipient voluntarily agreed to make its facsimile number available for public distribution. In addition, the
unsolicited ad must notify the recipient how to opt out of receiving future facsimile advertisements, subject to
certain requirements. The Commission has adopted implementing rules. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4).
5 Citation from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement
Bureau, to The Street Map Company (Feb. 5, 2008) (on file in EB-08-TC-998). The citation was addressed to
“The Street Map Company” and directed to the attention of Mr. Keane, and expressly warned that future violations
of the Act and the Commission’s rules governing telephone solicitations and unsolicited advertisements might
subject Mr. Keane or the entities perpetrating such behavior to monetary forfeitures.
6 Street Map Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 16371 (2010) (NAL 1); Street Map Co.,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 8318 (NAL 2).
7 NAL 1, 25 FCC Rcd at 16373; NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd at 1822.
8 Both NAL 1 and NAL 2 indicated that, according to publicly available information, “Street Map” also did business
as First State Map & Globe Co., Globe World, Rockford Map Gallery LLC, and Rockford Map & Globe. See NAL
1,
25 FCC Rcd at 16371 n.1; NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd at 8318 n.1. Appendix B gives examples of faxes that were
addressed in these NALs.
9 See Appendix A for a listing of the consumer complaints against Accurate Map Co., Data World, and Map World
requesting Commission action.
10 Appendix C includes examples of faxes that were the subject of complaints listed in Appendix A.
11 First State Map Company was registered in Delaware as a trade name in 1986 and uses the address 1800 Lovering
Ave., Wilmington, DE. See Delaware State Courts; Trade, Business & Fictitious Names; File No. 8008,
http://www.courts.delaware.gov/tradenames/JICKioskDetails.aspx?TradeNameID=67831 (last visited Sept. 6, 2012)
(showing trade name registration) and American Yellow Pages, http://www.ypstate.com/info/de/369006.html (last
(continued....)
2

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

and one of the telephone numbers, 855-888-8842, are listed as contact information for Mr. Keane and
another of his map enterprises, Learnamap.com.12
5.
The one fax mentioned above that uses a different address and phone number is the
subject of a complaint filed with the Commission on September 5, 2012 by the New York City Police
Department. This fax is similar to the other faxes in that it advertises the same type of laminated maps
and uses a similar design, including the same cartoon manikin. The only material difference between this
recent fax and the other faxes discussed above is it appears that Mr. Keane is now using a new business
name (Map Co.), a new Wilmington, DE address (4023 Kennett Pike, STE 132), and a new telephone
number for responses (855-744-5544).13 As with the other business names, Map Co. does not appear to
be an actual company or registered trade name. Further, according to telephone company records, the
new telephone number (855-744-5544) is assigned to Mr. Keane’s business, First State Map Company.14

III.

DISCUSSION

A.

Apparent Violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and the Commission’s Rules
Restricting Unsolicited Facsimile Advertisements

6.
In this NAL, we find that Mr. Keane has again apparently violated Section 227(b)(1)(C)
of the Act and Section 64.1200(a)(4) of the Commission’s rules by using a facsimile machine, computer,
or other device to send unsolicited advertisements to consumers. Under the Commission’s rules, the
sender of a junk fax is “the person or entity on whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited advertisement is sent
or whose goods or services are advertised or promoted in the unsolicited advertisement.”15 Each of the
consumers listed in Appendix A has provided evidence that he or she received a junk fax or faxes from
Mr. Keane, operating through different business names; that he or she did not have an established
business relationship with Mr. Keane, or any of his business names; and that he or she did not give him
permission to send the faxes. The faxes at issue here clearly constitute advertisements, as they advertise
laminated maps, and encourage consumers to place orders for those maps by calling one of Mr. Keane’s
telephone numbers. The faxes therefore fall within the definition of a prohibited “unsolicited
advertisement.”16

B.

Proposed Forfeiture

7.
Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a forfeiture against
any person who “willfully or repeatedly fail[s] to comply with any of the provisions of [the] Act or of any


(Continued from previous page)
visited Sept. 6, 2012) (identifying address as 1800 Lovering Avenue, Wilmington, DE). This address is the same as
that used by other business names, such as Rockford Map & Globe, that we have connected to Mr. Keane. See
Better Business Bureau, http://www.bbb.org/delaware/business-reviews/maps-publishers-and-distributors/rockford-
map-and-globe-in-wilmington-de-7004173 (last visited Sept. 6, 2012) (identifying 1800 Lovering Avenue,
Wilmington, DE as address for Rockford Map & Globe); NAL 1, 25 FCC Rcd 16371 n.1 (identifying Rockford Map
& Globe as alternate name for Street Map); NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd 8318 n.1 (same).
12 Learnamap.com Contact Page, http://www.learnamap.com/contact/contact.php (last visited July 19, 2012).
13 See Appendix C for a copy of this fax.
14 See supra note 11 (discussing First State Map Company and Mr. Keane).
15 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(10).
16 An “unsolicited advertisement” is “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,
goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission, in
writing or otherwise.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(15).
3

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission.”17 As to certain violators—for example, individuals
such as Mr. Keane who are not themselves holders of or applicants for any form of Commission
authorization and whose violations do not involve conduct for which such authorization is necessary—the
Commission must first issue a citation, as it did in this case, warning them of the violation charged before
imposing monetary penalties. “In determining the amount of . . . a forfeiture penalty,” Section
503(b)(2)(E) mandates that “the Commission or its designee shall take into account the nature,
circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”18
The Commission’s forfeiture guidelines set forth the base amount for penalties for certain kinds of
violations, and identify criteria, consistent with the Section 503(b)(2)(E) factors, that may influence
whether we adjust the base amount downward or upward.19 For example, we may adjust a penalty
upward for “[e]gregious misconduct,” an “[i]ntentional violation,” or where the subject of an enforcement
action has “[p]rior violations of any FCC requirements.”20 Currently, the maximum penalty that the
Commission may impose against a person or business such as Mr. Keane is $16,000 per violation.21
8.
The Commission has generally considered a penalty of $4,500 per unsolicited fax
advertisement as an appropriate base forfeiture for violating the prohibition against sending junk faxes.22
The Commission has increased the penalties, however, for entities and individuals who have engaged in
numerous and repeated violations. For example, in the second NAL against Mr. Keane, the Commission
proposed a forfeiture of $315,500, which included an upward adjustment for the more than 60 apparent
junk fax violations in which he had engaged at that time.23 As we have noted in these recent cases, we


17 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).
18 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
19 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(5) note. The absence of a particular type of violation from the forfeiture guidelines must “not
be taken to mean that the violation is unimportant or nonexistent,” and “the Commission retains discretion to impose
forfeitures for other violations.” Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement & Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines
, Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17110, para. 53 (1997)
(Forfeiture Policy Statement).
20 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(5) note.
21 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(C). Section 503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures of up to $10,000 for each violation in
cases, as in the instant case, where the violation does not involve a Commission licensee or common carriers, among
others. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(C). In accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321, the Commission
implemented an increase of the maximum statutory forfeiture under section 503(b)(2)(C) to $16,000. See 47 C.F.R.
§1.80(b)(4). See also Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima
to Reflect Inflation,
23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (amendment of section 1.80(b) to reflect inflation increased the
forfeiture maximum for this type of violator to $16,000).
22 See Get-Aways, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 1805, 1812, para, 16 (1999); Get-
Aways, Inc.,
Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4843 (2000); see also US Notary, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 15 Rcd 16999, 17003, para. 13 (2000); US Notary, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18398 (2001);
Tri-Star Marketing, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 11295, 11300, para.12 (2000)
(Tri-Star NAL); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23198 (2000).
23 NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd at 8321-22, paras. 10-11 (2011) (applying a $75,000 upward adjustment in proposing a
forfeiture for 51 junk fax violations, taking into account the violator’s prior 11 junk fax violations); see also
National Employee Benefits Group,
Notice of Apparent Liability, 27 FCC Rcd 2734, 2737, para. 8 (2012) (applying
a $150,000 upward adjustment in proposing a forfeiture for 97 junk fax violations); Laser Technologies, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 10792, 10795, para. 9 (2011) (applying a $50,000 upward adjustment
in proposing a forfeiture for 40 junk fax violations); Presidential Who’s Who, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 8989, 8993–95, paras. 11–13 (2011) (applying a $150,000 upward adjustment in proposing
a forfeiture for 31 junk fax violations, taking into account the violator’s 73 prior junk fax violations) (Presidential
Who’s Who NAL)
.
4

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

intend to apply appropriate upward adjustments, up to the $16,000 statutory maximum forfeiture, on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account our obligation under section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act.24 Indeed,
where the Commission has found that a given violator of junk fax or other TCPA prohibitions appears to
have engaged in deceit by attempting to disguise its identity to confuse consumers or evade law
enforcement, the Commission has proposed the full statutory maximum of $16,000 per unsolicited fax.25
9.
Consistent with the factors that must control our determination of the amount of a
forfeiture penalty to assess for a given violator and violation, we propose the maximum penalty of
$16,000 for each of the 38 violations at issue in this NAL, for a total proposed forfeiture of $608,000. As
in other recent cases where the Commission has proposed the maximum penalty, we do so here because
Mr. Keane has apparently engaged in numerous and repeated violations, and has done so intentionally and
in an egregious manner.
10.
With this NAL, we have now taken enforcement actions against Mr. Keane for 100
apparent violations of the Junk Fax Act and the Commission’s implementing rules.26 All of these
apparent violations occurred after the Enforcement Bureau first warned Mr. Keane, via citation, that his
conduct violated the law. All of the apparent violations in the present case also occurred after both our
prior NALs. The fact that Mr. Keane appears to have engaged in such a large number of violations after
having been told, several times, that his conduct violated the law strongly suggests that he acted with
deliberate and intentional disregard for TCPA requirements and the consumers the law is designed to
protect.
11.
Mr. Keane’s use of different, multiple names to send unsolicited fax advertisements
further suggests a deliberate intent to violate the law. As indicated, the faxes at issue in NAL 1 and NAL 2
used the name “Street Map,” while the faxes at issue in the current NAL use the names “Accurate Map,”
“Data World,” “Map World,” and “Map Co.” None of these names appears to be an actual, independent
legal entity, or a registered fictitious business name. Mr. Keane appears to have no purpose for using
these different names other than to disguise that he is the sender of the junk faxes. This again suggests
that Mr. Keane is intentionally violating the law.
12.
As a further reason to impose the maximum penalty authorized, we note that the faxes at
issue in this NAL violate not only the prohibition on sending junk faxes but certain other rules as well.
Section 68.318(d) of our rules requires that every fax must show, in the margin, the date and time it was
sent and an identification of the business, entity, or individual sending the message, as well as the


24 See, e.g., NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd at 8322, para. 11: “Those who violate our junk fax rules are on notice that we intend to
use the full range of our enforcement power to deter future noncompliance and protect consumers from the annoyance and
harms caused by such conduct, including assessing the statutory maximum forfeiture amount of $16,000 per violation.”
25 Tim Gibbons, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 12-98 (rel. Sept. 4, 2012); Sabrina Javani d/b/a EZ
Business Loans
, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 7921 (2012); Teresa Goldberg a/k/a
Tammy Pocknett d/b/a Software Training Co. et al
., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 2723
(2012); Travel Club Marketing d/b/a Travelink Corp. et al., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd
15381 (2011).
26 Section 504(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 504(c), prohibits the Commission from using the issuance of an NAL
against a party in one proceeding to the prejudice of that party in another proceeding, until either the party pays the
forfeiture or a court issues a final order that it do so. However, this prohibition does not restrict the Commission
from considering the facts that underlie prior NALs. Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17102–04, paras.
33–36. Thus, consideration in the current NAL of Mr. Keane’s past conduct that led to our earlier enforcement
actions is fully consistent with section 504(c) of the Act. See Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and
Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,
Memorandum Opinion and Order,
15 FCC Rcd. 303, 304–05, paras. 3–5 (1999).
5

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

telephone number of the sending machine.27 Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii) of the Commission's rules requires
that all unsolicited advertisements contain an opt-out notice that informs the recipient of the ability and
means to avoid future unsolicited advertisements, including a domestic telephone number that the
recipient can call to transmit such requests to the sender.28 None of the faxes submitted with the
complaints comply with any of these requirements. In fact, as a complainant points out,29 the ostensible
opt-out number on many of the faxes is actually the number provided by the Federal Trade Commission
for consumers to call and list their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, a number
and registry that has no relevance to faxes. These acts appear to be additional violations of our rules and
the Junk Fax Act that could carry separate penalties of up to $16,000 each.30 While we do not propose
independent penalties for these violations at this time, we do consider such violations to be aggravating
factors that justify upward adjustments to the base forfeiture amounts.
13.
Accordingly, weighing the facts before us, we propose the maximum penalty allowed
under the Act and our rules—$16,000, for each junk fax apparently sent to these consumers—for a total
penalty of $608,000. This penalty takes into account, in the language of section 503(b)(2)(E), the
“extent” of the violations, and Mr. Keane’s “degree of culpability” and “history of prior offenses,”31 and
in the language of our forfeiture guidelines, Mr. Keane’s apparent “egregious,” “intentional,” and
“repeated” violations.”32 We believe this upward adjustment and overall penalty against Mr. Keane, and
all his various businesses and trade names, are appropriate in view of the number, scope, and repeated
nature of the apparent violations, the fact that he apparently engaged in much of this misconduct
deliberately and in complete disregard of the Commission’s previous warnings, and the fact that he has
used different names to confuse consumers and disguise his true identity as the sender of these faxes. All
of these factors strongly indicate knowing, willful, and deliberate efforts to violate the junk fax rules and
then to conceal and evade responsibility for such violations.

IV.

CONCLUSION

14.
We have determined that Mr. Keane apparently violated Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act
and Section 64.1200(a)(4) of the Commission’s rules by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer,
or other device to send 38 unsolicited advertisements to the 31 consumers identified in Appendix A. We
have further determined that Mr. Keane is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $608,000.
Mr. Keane will have the opportunity to submit evidence and arguments in response to this NAL to show
that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed.33

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

15.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80,
that Patrick Thomas Keane, operating as Accurate Map. Co., Data World, Map World, Map Co., and
other names, is hereby

NOTIFIED

of this

APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE

in the
amount of $608,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications


27 47 C.F.R. § 68.318(d).
28 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).
29 See FCC Form 1088A – Junk Fax Complaint from A. Pendergast (Nov. 9, 2011) (“The removal # is the national
do not call registry.”) See also example faxes in Appendix C.
30 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 68.318(d), 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).
31 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
32 47 C.F.R. § 1.80 sec. II (Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures).
33 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).
6

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C), and Section 64.1200(a)(4) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
64.1200(a)(4).
16.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,34
that within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
Mr. Keane

SHALL PAY

the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or

SHALL FILE

a written statement
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
17.
Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and FRN referenced above. Patrick Keane shall
send electronic notification of payment to Johnny Drake at Johnny.Drake@fcc.gov on the date said
payment is made. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice)
must be submitted.35 When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number
23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code). Below
are additional instructions you should follow based on the form of payment you select:
Ÿ
Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-
GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
Ÿ
Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire transfer and ensure
appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank
at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
Ÿ
Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on
FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment.
The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank –
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101.
18.
Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial
Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-
A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.36 If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please contact
the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail,
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
19.
The response, if any, must be mailed both to: Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, Attn: Enforcement Bureau
– Telecommunications Consumers Division; and to Richard A. Hindman, Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. Documents sent
by overnight mail (other than United States Postal Service Express Mail) must be addressed to: Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Hand or messenger-delivered mail should be directed, without


34 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
35 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
36 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
7

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

envelopes, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554 (deliveries accepted Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. only). See www.fcc.gov/osec/guidelines.html for further instructions on FCC
filing addresses.
20.
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; 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.
21.

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 First Class mail to Mr. Patrick
Keane, 24-A Trolley Square, Wilmington, DE 19806; Mr. Patrick Keane, 1800 Lovering Ave.,
Wilmington, DE 19806-2122; and Mr. Patrick Keane, 717 N. Union St., Wilmington, DE 19805; Mr.
Patrick Keane, 4023 Kennett Pike, Suite 132, Wilmington, DE 19807.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
8

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

APPENDIX A

Complainants and Apparent Violation Dates

Complainant received facsimile solicitations

Apparent Violation Date(s)

A. Pendergast, Flowers By Nino
10/27/2011; 10/29/2011; 11/05/2011; 11/07/2011;
11/09/2011
I. Whitehead, U.S. Govt. Printing Office
10/31/2011
A. May
10/31/2011
J. Newman
11/06/2011
A. Richardson, Paul S. McDonald & Assoc., Inc.
11/07/2011
J. Newman, Newman Brothers
11/08/2011
J. Hinterbichler, Arrow Enterprises LLC
11/20/2011
C. Kern
11/20/2011
G. Zamudio, Mind’s Eye Technology, Inc.
11/20/2011
B. Delaney, Parke-West Fine Art Appraisal Service
11/28/2011; 12/1/2011
B. Fried, Galaxy Promotions
11/29/2011
J. Greco, E&M Mayock and Associates
12/1/2011
M. Benioff
12/6/2011
C. Drechsler, Garmin AT
12/12/2011
V. Carver
12/12/2011
S. Delauter
12/15/2011
J. Watson, Nick Watson Agency
12/16/2011
R. Miller, Advantage Northwest
12/20/2011
D. Breen, David H. Breen P.A.
12/29/2011
H. Townsend
12/31/2011
C. Ledet
1/07/2012
L. Wistow
1/16/2012, 1/22/2012, 1/26/2012
A. Curtiss
1/22/2012
L. Lapham
2/05/2012
D. Neumetzger
3/4/2012
T. Chernok
3/4/2012
K. Fleming, Fleming Construction Services, LLC
3/16/2012
S. Mielach
3/16/2012
A. Koganov
3/19/2012
E. Mata, Zaphyr Technologies
3/20/2012
P. Malarkey, New York City Police Department
9/5/12
9

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

APPENDIX B

Examples of Faxes in NAL 1

and NAL 2
10

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

11

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

APPENDIX C

Examples of Faxes in This NAL

12

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

13

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

14

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-132

15

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.