Letter now Court case

[hondoharry]

good luck with that
wanna bet they have the emails and pm's with codes

OK, so you donated to the poor guy and he sent you stuff you never asked for and just deleted it.

[dishuser]

OK, so you donated to the poor guy and he sent you stuff you never asked for and just deleted it.
and I woke up to a mailbox full of weed with my name on it but it's not possession...lol

[burnsy]

OK, so you donated to the poor guy and he sent you stuff you never asked for and just deleted it.

Sure you just tell that to the Judge I am sure they will let you off wow I have some land in Florida to sell you

[bkr™]

I have some land in Florida to sell you

How much for the land?....LOL

[hondoharry]

Sure you just tell that to the Judge I am sure they will let you off wow I have some land in Florida to sell you

The hell with the judge. I want to tell it to a jury.

[Nostradamus]

The hell with the judge. I want to tell it to a jury.

I am not sure if you can request a jury in these menial civil cases

[dishuser]

I am not sure if you can request a jury in these menial civil casesya good luck with that
put 12 people on a jury that pay $120/month for tv and see if they side with you for stealing...lol

[Nostradamus]

ya good luck with that
put 12 people on a jury that pay $120/month for tv and see if they side with you for stealing...lol

even worse is the fact they are missing out on the tv they pay big $ for to sit there and listen to all the lame excuses of why you bought a code but never used it :)

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I am not sure if you can request a jury in these menial civil cases


The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury in certain civil suits in Federal courts. I don't know which ones qualify. I would not think it would apply to these cases.



GS2

[fifties]

Plaintiffs simply don't show all their evidence in a complaint. It will come out with testimony, affidavits, papers, photos, emails, messages, etc later on
It will actually come out in the discovery phase of the litigation. At that time, which is before the litigants go into the court room, all evidence on either side must be presented, so there are no surprises once the matter is argued before the bench (and possibly jurors). Don't they do it this way in Canada, as well?



Not sure why everyone is saying there are no server logs. It seems to me this guy wufman co-operated. Does anyone know the extent of his co-operation.

Having access to the mod panel at various sites would not give him information in regards to the server, so it's doubtful, unlike the DA cases where DN would have had access to server records, that his PC would have yielded log information.


The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury in certain civil suits in Federal courts. I don't know which ones qualify. I would not think it would apply to these cases.

In fact we have a right to trial by a jury of our peers in any matter brought in either municipal or superior court. Small claims is the only venue that does not offer that accommodation.

An attorney would know if the particular case at hand might be better for the defendant, if a jury, rather than a judge, were to try it. He might make that decision once he found out who the judge would be.

[hondoharry]

Wonder how much the jury selection process would add to your legal fees.

As fifties or alex says, you're probably better off negotiating the $3500 and be done with it.

But if we were truly a community, we would all get together and support a defense for one case to set a precedent and have the others thrown out.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

It will actually come out in the discovery phase of the litigation. At that time, which is before the litigants go into the court room, all evidence on either side must be presented, so there are no surprises once the matter is argued before the bench (and possibly jurors). Don't they do it this way in Canada, as well?


I mentioned discovered before and being deposed on any deposition given where evidence can be obtained. This time just said it will come later. The point is you can't judge the evidence or call it skimpy based on a complaint. Its unknown what evidence exists.



Having access to the mod panel at various sites would not give him information in regards to the server, so it's doubtful, unlike the DA cases where DN would have had access to server records, that his PC would have yielded log information.


We would not know what he had or had turned over at this point. If hes just a mod then why did he have business records of people who bought subscriptions to the server. Maybe his role is/was bigger than suspected.



In fact we have a right to trial by a jury of our peers in any matter brought in either municipal or superior court. Small claims is the only venue that does not offer that accommodation.


I would not agree with that. It generally does not apply to state courts. It can apply to Federal Courts with cases under common law.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Wonder how much the jury selection process would add to your legal fees.

As fifties or alex says, you're probably better off negotiating the $3500 and be done with it.

But if we were truly a community, we would all get together and support a defense for one case to set a precedent and have the others thrown out.


That happen with the Dave end user lawsuits. There was even a site started where lawyers came and posted with the community. It was effective.




GS2

[fifties]

Having access to the mod panel at various sites would not give him information in regards to the server, so it's doubtful, unlike the DA cases where DN would have had access to server records, that his PC would have yielded log information.

We would not know what he had or had turned over at this point. If hes just a mod then why did he have business records of people who bought subscriptions to the server. Maybe his role is/was bigger than suspected.
He may have had detailed information on his customers, but unless he had access to the server (for what reason I couldn't imagine, before caving into DN), he would not have had any logging information.




In fact we have a right to trial by a jury of our peers in any matter brought in either municipal or superior court. Small claims is the only venue that does not offer that accommodation.

I would not agree with that. It generally does not apply to state courts. It can apply to Federal Courts with cases under common law.

You may not agree with that, but I'm talking from experience. Some years back, I was temporarily impaneled on a municipal court jury to hear a case where a guy was suing his insurance company.

[alex70olds]

Wonder how much the jury selection process would add to your legal fees.

As fifties or alex says, you're probably better off negotiating the $3500 and be done with it.

But if we were truly a community, we would all get together and support a defense for one case to set a precedent and have the others thrown out.

Did I say that? If I did, I am not so sure. Still doing research on the DA cases.

[hondoharry]

That happen with the Dave end user lawsuits. There was even a site started where lawyers came and posted with the community. It was effective.

GS2

Yep, reminds me of the days when the self proclaimed 'testers' were accusing everybody else of being 'free TVers'. Those arguments seem to have faded away. Now all that's left are free TVers except for the few plastic guys getting sued big time.

[1boxman]

He may have had detailed information on his customers, but unless he had access to the server (for what reason I couldn't imagine, before caving into DN), he would not have had any logging information.


You may not agree with that, but I'm talking from experience. Some years back, I was temporarily impaneled on a municipal court jury to hear a case where a guy was suing his insurance company.

The think in question ...would be ..having a panel with who he was selling for and what info was given about them . The mod panels on the sites ..if he had excess to ip's ..which ip's are not a person but still would link to emails and the person . So would be or enough ..whether they can us it all ..?

The info on who bought a code ..would confirm the paper trail to the person ..and depends on what info was given buy the person .

There was speculation ..but I doubt it ...on the paypal account of wuf was taken and watched .

Now we need see a hack in on a severer.. reveling who is connect and ip's ..now if they have any of this ..back to holding evidence to be presented at trial or before ..

Some or all of it ...can it be good ...or did they obtain it wrongfully ?

[alex70olds]

Yep, reminds me of the days when the self proclaimed 'testers' were accusing everybody else of being 'free TVers'. Those arguments seem to have faded away. Now all that's left are free TVers except for the few plastic guys getting sued big time.

lmao, no, the real testers do nothing in public anymore due to the heat the free tvers brought. The arguments have only faded because of what you see right here in this thread. Hell I wont even tell somebody to where to look for a file. It is the price of posting in public.

[kyzursozay]

He may have had detailed information on his customers, but unless he had access to the server (for what reason I couldn't imagine, before caving into DN),

What if the reason was to access information on other mods/reseelers & their customers ?......... as kijiji has mentioned in Rockets Discussions "is it safe to donate" thread post # 12.........

[alex70olds]

Or they can subponea the ISP. I found one DA case so far where the defendant at least started to fight the charges. Here in this motion for summary judgment. Exhibit 2 is the response of Verizon.

[1boxman]

Hope he had a body condom on ..

[alex70olds]

Just as a refresher, Copy of Dixons Demonic Letter,

17610

17611

LMFAO They reference the Blacklist case. WTF has that got to do with an IKS enduser :noidea:

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

He may have had detailed information on his customers, but unless he had access to the server (for what reason I couldn't imagine, before caving into DN), he would not have had any logging information.


Basically no one knows what he had or what he cooperated with. Its speculation.



You may not agree with that, but I'm talking from experience. Some years back, I was temporarily impaneled on a municipal court jury to hear a case where a guy was suing his insurance company.


That case might have qualified for jury trial. Some cases do and some don't.



GS2

[fifties]

That case might have qualified for jury trial. Some cases do and some don't.


GS2
Most states allow trial by jury in civil cases, with no qualifications.
Here's a reference to California law, as an example; the first paragraph establishes that;


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=631-636

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Most states allow trial by jury in civil cases, with no qualifications.
Here's a reference to California law, as an example; the first paragraph establishes that;


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=631-636


From the California state court website.




First, you do not always have the right to a jury trial in all civil cases. But if you do have the option, there are a lot of things to think about when you decide what kind of trial to ask for.

Some types of disputes cannot be decided by a jury. These include claims for injunctive relief or declaratory relief, or questions of law instead of questions of fact




You have to read case law to see what courts define as a right to jury trial under the constitution in California.




Article I, section 16 of the California Constitution provides, in relevant part: “Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all.” This inviolate right preserves the right that Americans had under the old common law to a jury trial in certain types of cases. (People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe (1951) 37 Cal. 2d 283, 286; Farrell v. City of Ontario (2d App. Dist. 1919) 39 Cal.App. 351, 356.) Constitutional guarantees of jury trials are not “inapplicable to all causes of action that were unrecognized at common law in 1791. The historical test we apply is flexible and may require a jury in a new cause of action, not in existence in 1791, if it involves rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law or if its nearest historical analogue is an action at common law.” (Goar v. Compania Peruana de Vapores (5th Cir. 1982) 688 F.2d 417, 427 (citations omitted).)




GS2

[Anubis]

Hijack start...
Geez, I think I'm going to write the bar by the time this ever dies with all the info I'm learning.:thumbsup:
Sorry back to regular programming.
Hijack end.

[fifties]

Some types of disputes cannot be decided by a jury. These include claims for injunctive relief or declaratory relief, or questions of law instead of questions of fact

Those types of suits require legal knowledge to adjudicate, so of course they would not be able to be determined by a jury of ones "peers".

OTOH, a suit for $ can almost always be heard by a jury.

[kyzursozay]

ya good luck with that
put 12 people on a jury that pay $120/month for tv and see if they side with you for stealing...lol


even worse is the fact they are missing out on the tv they pay big $ for to sit there and listen to all the lame excuses of why you bought a code but never used it :)

great points for attorneys to nulify them during jury approval procedure ..........LOL

[hondoharry]

I still think you would have a better chance with a jury than a judge. However, considering that your defense lawyer(s) charge by the hour, the jury selection process alone will probably run you...

[ftaalltheway]

ok call me stuppid,,nothing new there ;)

considering Wuf's codes were almost alll stolen,,, (bought mine
at beta almost yr ago and is on list of stolen even though some worked for a while at least until
nfps caught on) could'nt one argue as a defense
you bought the codes BUT they never connected to any server cuz they
were compromised??? i mean far as i know,,,the plaintif hasnt stated they have
server loggs so how would they be able to rebutt "that" ,,,

now we're back with ONLY buying a code so, is THAT enough??
to prove their claim?? maybe these defendants should check thir codes
to see if they are on this list?? food for thought

edit:for those who try defending him/herself?

suggest you try your code on the checker and if it says stolen
and deactivated??? take your webcam or digital and snap a still
photo and save,,,cuz i think it will only be avail for next 10 days

[dishuser]

ok call me stuppid,,nothing new there ;)

considering Wuf's codes were almost alll stolen,,, (bought mine
at beta almost yr ago and is on list of stolen even though some worked for a while at least until
nfps caught on) could'nt one argue as a defense
you bought the codes BUT they never connected to any server cuz they
were compromised??? i mean far as i know,,,the plaintif hasnt stated they have
server loggs so how would they be able to rebutt "that" ,,,

now we're back with ONLY buying a code so, is THAT enough??
to prove their claim?? maybe these defendants should check thir codes
to see if they are on this list?? food for thought

edit:for those who try defending him/herself?

suggest you try your code on the checker and if it says stolen
and deactivated??? take your webcam or digital and snap a still
photo and save,,,cuz i think it will only be avail for next 10 days
shows stolen on code checker?
hahaha

[ftaalltheway]

shows stolen on code checker?
hahaha

here's my neighbour's friend's uncle who got it through his
dad's mistress who used to bang, the wufman

http://phoenix.satfix.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=17659&stc=1&d=1361140164

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

ok call me stuppid,,nothing new there ;)

considering Wuf's codes were almost alll stolen,,, (bought mine
at beta almost yr ago and is on list of stolen even though some worked for a while at least until
nfps caught on) could'nt one argue as a defense
you bought the codes BUT they never connected to any server cuz they
were compromised??? i mean far as i know,,,the plaintif hasnt stated they have
server loggs so how would they be able to rebutt "that" ,,,

now we're back with ONLY buying a code so, is THAT enough??
to prove their claim?? maybe these defendants should check thir codes
to see if they are on this list?? food for thought

edit:for those who try defending him/herself?

suggest you try your code on the checker and if it says stolen
and deactivated??? take your webcam or digital and snap a still
photo and save,,,cuz i think it will only be avail for next 10 days



So the defense would be that you bought these codes to view unauthorized signals but found out you couldn't because they were stolen and did not work. ?


I so don't think that would work too well.



GS2

[ftaalltheway]

So the defense would be that you bought these codes to view unauthorized signals but found out you couldn't because they were stolen and did not work. ?


I so don't think that would work too well.



GS2

nope,,, i would say i bought codes for my neighbour who told me they were
for his FTA rec and would increase his true FTA signals to reach many
countries that would otherwise be out of reach,,,wasnt aware he had other plans
and because of his lies was removed from my xmas list,,,would it fly? never hurts
to try,,,be surprised what a judge might believe esp with a HHHot blonde luxurygirl sitting
right next to you,,, all the while winking at the judge,,, lol

[ftaalltheway]

nope,,, i would say i bought codes for my neighbour who told me they were
for his FTA rec and would increase his true FTA signals to reach many
countries that would otherwise be out of reach,,,wasnt aware he had other plans
and because of his lies was removed from my xmas list,,,would it fly? never hurts
to try,,,be surprised what a judge might believe esp with a HHHot blonde luxurygirl sitting
right next to you,,, all the while winking at the judge,,, lol

edit; all kidding aside
ill be damned if i would allow a co like dn dictate what i can or cant buy,,, more
importantly, if they CANT tie in the use of that code and havent entered
my premises to confiscate all the hardware that this code was SUPPOSEDLY
used with/for??? then Yessirie bob,, they would have a Fight on their hands,,,were it
me named in this Bull crap claim

also, may i suggest resellers take be proactive by realizing the ONLY reason
this claim was made??? paypal,,,purge your data, cancel your existing pp acct
jic dn prevails cuz waiting until a judgement willbe too late,,dn would act super fast
to have PP turn over allllll suspiscious accts ESP active ones,,,all peeps should NO longer
be at resellers' behest,,,force them to offer other methods...IF you cant pay
using other method?? find it,,,otherwise youre SOL,,,this is ONLY one way
to try to save this from going south
i realize this is a shot in the dark by dn with this bs claim BUT all they need is
one peep to give in or be judged and the domino effect ,,, why do you think
third party payees by fish, nfps dont include PP?? cuz dn KNOWS full well
they dont have the same reaches to overseas payees,,,as has been proven
with NO letters whatsover by txns processed by other payees,,,failure to do this
all of you are only to blame,,,

not syaing i expect dn to win but best to have
backup plan already in effect,,,all the best to all of you faced with this current
claim,,,fight it make an example of DN and make them go after the REAL thieves
the server ops,,,ask them why they didnt go after endusers in that belgium co
who were nabbed short while back where nag and his friends were involved and
of course paypal right in there with them and turning over records/files,,,

dont misunderstand,,i think going after resellers is totally different and
fair game BUT
in a round about way then turn around
and file a claim against any enduser THAT the reseller sold to?? is LAME
at best,,,THAT is what smells about all this,,,ill gotten gains is
a phrase that comes to mind

so,take PP out out of this equation and theyve got SQUAT
on endusers,,,so that filing and the letters should be fought with a different
angle ,,of course a sharp lawyer would be able to find THAT argument

anyways,,food for thought

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

nope,,, i would say i bought codes for my neighbour who told me they were
for his FTA rec and would increase his true FTA signals to reach many
countries that would otherwise be out of reach,,,wasnt aware he had other plans
and because of his lies was removed from my xmas list,,,would it fly? never hurts
to try,,,be surprised what a judge might believe esp with a HHHot blonde luxurygirl sitting
right next to you,,, all the while winking at the judge,,, lol


So the neighbour would go along and say he was a big liar and admit he wanted the codes and put himself at risk of being sued.



GS2

[ftaalltheway]

So the neighbour would go along and say he was a big liar and admit he wanted the codes and put himself at risk of being sued.



GS2

you dont have to present a neighbour to prove anything ESP
one that has moved away BUT ,,,throw as much as you can
against the claim to give the judge pause for thought,,,
if anything, if you present it properly and look and sound believeable??
be surprised ,,,judges arent quick to react if they are facing DOUBT,,,
reasonable doubt,,,in effect make the judge think that DN
doesnt really have enough to file the claim and dismiss it,,,as it should be

its called cherry picking and were i a lawyer (sharp lawyer)
i would argue ,,,with the thousands and thousands of endusers out there
why did they choose only a handful?? again, gives judge pause for thought

trust me a sharp lawyer would think of every possible angle
to argue of course this would cost BUT this is a test case and the future of
endusers using IKS in ONLY the U.S via pp payments is at stake
NOT the end of IKS but will scare many peeps away since it will cause dn
to muddy the waters all the more with pointless letters SCARING peeps
to give in...food for thought

[fifties]

http://phoenix.satfix.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=17659&stc=1&d=1361140164
See where -in your link- it says, "deactivated"? That would allow pause that it was in fact working at one time, so the user was in fact in violation of the DMCA.


you dont have to present a neighbour to prove anything ESP
one that has moved away BUT ,,,throw as much as you can
against the claim to give the judge pause for thought,,,

Judges rely on evidence based on fact. Have you ever heard of a written sworn testimony? Something like that is what the judge would need to see, not the defendants "word"...:rolleyes:

AFA your future as a lawyer...Keep your day job...

Trust me...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

you dont have to present a neighbour to prove anything ESP
one that has moved away BUT ,,,throw as much as you can
against the claim to give the judge pause for thought,,,
if anything, if you present it properly and look and sound believeable??
be surprised ,,,judges arent quick to react if they are facing DOUBT,,,
reasonable doubt,,,in effect make the judge think that DN
doesnt really have enough to file the claim and dismiss it,,,as it should be

its called cherry picking and were i a lawyer (sharp lawyer)
i would argue ,,,with the thousands and thousands of endusers out there
why did they choose only a handful?? again, gives judge pause for thought

trust me a sharp lawyer would think of every possible angle
to argue of course this would cost BUT this is a test case and the future of
endusers using IKS in ONLY the U.S via pp payments is at stake
NOT the end of IKS but will scare many peeps away since it will cause dn
to muddy the waters all the more with pointless letters SCARING peeps
to give in...food for thought



In a civil process you would probably be deposed and asked who was your neighbor with a whole bunch of questions on it including when, where did they move away and what was their address as a neighbor to you. You start with not answering or you forgot it won't come off as too believable.


Throwing everything out there will look exactly like that and doubt that will help. You just be opening more doors for them to check out and ask you about. You can't answer or answer where your contradicting yourself or end up caught in a lie will hurt with a court. In the 12 years or so I have seen people come up with stories as a defense not one was successful or maybe not even tried. Lawyer are not keen on made up stories used as defense. They are looking to defend on law.




GS2

[hondoharry]

I'm with ftaalltheway all the way. I want to see him get the best lawyers who would have the best chance of winning his case. He could be that rich guy willing to spend $35,000 to beat a $3500 demand letter over a $35 purchase. Go for it man. I'm with you all the way. I'll even send $5 to your defense fund. Where do I sign up?

[MarvinGardens]

its called cherry picking and were i a lawyer (sharp lawyer)
i would argue ,,,with the thousands and thousands of endusers out there
why did they choose only a handful?? again, gives judge pause for thought

If you were that lawyer making that argument in front of a judge you would be setting yourself up to be sanctioned (fined or disciplined) by the judge.

Every lawyer (sharp and dull ones) know that the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit them from making that kind of argument.

[ftaalltheway]

In a civil process you would probably be deposed and asked who was your neighbor with a whole bunch of questions on it including when, where did they move away and what was their address as a neighbor to you. You start with not answering or you forgot it won't come off as too believable.


Throwing everything out there will look exactly like that and doubt that will help. You just be opening more doors for them to check out and ask you about. You can't answer or answer where your contradicting yourself or end up caught in a lie will hurt with a court. In the 12 years or so I have seen people come up with stories as a defense not one was successful or maybe not even tried. Lawyer are not keen on made up stories used as defense. They are looking to defend on law.




GS2

agree partly,,,that basicaly what i meant in essence,,,a sharp lawyer would
be able to argue SOME law, surely there has to be at least one OTHER
than technical ones??

look, dn knows full well, the ONLY way they got this info
was a back door opening by first INVESTIGATING
a reseller's acct,,,no way enduser should then be named

thats MY point about "ill gotten means",,,NO way
dn can PROVE you used this code and to argue in front
of a judge, without connecting alllllll the dots, as i stated
his officials entering said premises to then confiscate
related hardware, and/or server logs???is simply a CROCK ;)

[ftaalltheway]

I'm with ftaalltheway all the way. I want to see him get the best lawyers who would have the best chance of winning his case. He could be that rich guy willing to spend $35,000 to beat a $3500 demand letter over a $35 purchase. Go for it man. I'm with you all the way. I'll even send $5 to your defense fund. Where do I sign up?

ill fund 50.00

[ftaalltheway]

If you were that lawyer making that argument in front of a judge you would be setting yourself up to be sanctioned (fined or disciplined) by the judge.

Every lawyer (sharp and dull ones) know that the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit them from making that kind of argument.

of course one would make a PLAUSIBLE argument
one that can be construed as fact BUT cant be proven
gee sound familiar?? much like the claim the plaintiff
is making,,,what happens if/when THEY lose their case?
it gets dismissed, with NO sanctions for a frivolous claim

[MarvinGardens]

That lawyer could be sanctioned regardless or whether his side won or lost the case.

That argument simply has no legal relevance to the case and a judge or jury would not even consider it when making their decision. In fact it would very well prejudice a judge against you and your cause.

[sal0826]

Was this letter from a law office by the name of Boyle or Dolyle?



That lawyer could be sanctioned regardless or whether his side won or lost the case.

That argument simply has no legal relevance to the case and a judge or jury would not even consider it when making their decision. In fact it would very well prejudice a judge against you and your cause.

[ftaalltheway]

That lawyer could be sanctioned regardless or whether his side won or lost the case.

That argument simply has no legal relevance to the case and a judge or jury would not even consider it when making their decision. In fact it would very well prejudice a judge against you and your cause.

its a civil claim,,, MANY plaintifs file frivolous claims and they get dismissed
faster than it was filed,,,judges are swamped with them

jury?? i think ur stuck in CRIMINAL mode,,,legal relevance?? give head a shake ;)

prejudice a judge? give head a shake ;) say what you will

still doesnt take away from what this claim is all about,,,

A CROCK!!!!!

[jeldf]

I love this stuff.......been following and doing lots of reading because it's interesting and some peeps make some good posts and good points! I went back and read the OP pdf. dn/nag make two claims about IKS. One, it updates STB piracy software and two, provides code words to circumvent nagra encryption. I have a friend with a so called 'donation' and I never ever seen his STB software updated from said 'service' I even went to the NFPS site and could find nothing that makes this claim. Am I wrong or missing something? Surely dn would not be making false accusations?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

agree partly,,,that basicaly what i meant in essence,,,a sharp lawyer would
be able to argue SOME law, surely there has to be at least one OTHER
than technical ones??

look, dn knows full well, the ONLY way they got this info
was a back door opening by first INVESTIGATING
a reseller's acct,,,no way enduser should then be named

thats MY point about "ill gotten means",,,NO way
dn can PROVE you used this code and to argue in front
of a judge, without connecting alllllll the dots, as i stated
his officials entering said premises to then confiscate
related hardware, and/or server logs???is simply a CROCK ;)


They have the business records and therefore named the end user. There is nothing wrong or illegal with that. Your assuming that the plaintiffs have to prove the end user used the code. I don't think they do. I think they have to show by the evidence its more likely than not that the intent was to use the codes illegally not that they have to show the codes were actually used. There is no other use for these codes which by themselves would be considered illegal along with the operation of the server being illegal. The plaintiff has filled a complaint and it will shift to the defendant to explain the purchase of the codes in defense. The tendency is to than come up with stories that leave more to attack by the plaintiffs.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

The defendant would have to file a motion for dismiss alleging its frivolous. I don't see that happening because I don't see it as frivolous. I could see the defendant filling a claim to to try...

[fifties]

As I've posted all along, DN would need to be challenged in court -at a cost very likely greater than the $3500 first letter demand- that their evidence, consisting solely of proof of purchase of IKS codes, is not sufficient to enable a judgment in their favor, as compensation for their alleged theft of their service claim.

They can't show proof that the defendant owns a satellite receiver, perhaps no proof that there's a dish on his roof, and perhaps no proof that he actually connected to the server. Without at least two of these additional factors to support their claim, all they can show is intent, and in civil, intent ain't enough.

Now that being said, so far as we know, no cases have actually been challenged in court, and until that occurs, if ever, all we can do is speculate about it.

BTW, someone posted about criminal court...Let's understand that DN is suing in civil court. Cases referred to criminal so far have not been end users, AFAIK.

[nrules387]

In my honest opinion there is no getting away from this,
If they take you to court you could try and claim you didn't use the codes, but you still bought them, and they are only for one reason, to recive pay tv service illegally.

If I was caught with drugs in my pocket, I cant claim, well I didn't use those drugs, I just bought them to have them.

[noveon7]

It was a donation to them.

[dishuser]

It was a donation to them.

good luck using that for defense

[Anubis]

In that case they will charge you with possession in criminal court not civil. People have to stop comparing I had drugs which is a criminal matter to piracy which is a civil matter.

[walter]

If one were to challenge DN's claims and were to win, would they be entitled to counter sue for the expenses incurred?

[iq180]

If one were to challenge DN's claims and were to win, would they be entitled to counter sue for the expenses incurred?
no, thats the bad part, DN knows this, thats why they sent the letters, to get as mutch money as they can before they loose in court,
and no they dont have to give the money back for all the demand letters that were allready payed if they loose in court, so you can
bet they will drag it out for as long as they can.
i still say they will need server logs or your isp logs.

[jvvh5897]

Make a counter offer before just sending them the money. I don't think the damages to DN is greater than $100 US for any one user. Odds are in a civil case the judge would send the parties to mediation anyway.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Make a counter offer before just sending them the money. I don't think the damages to DN is greater than $100 US for any one user. Odds are in a civil case the judge would send the parties to mediation anyway.


By all means try to settle with a lesser amount. They might perfer to wrap it up and eliminate the court costs.



GS2

[fifties]

If one were to challenge DN's claims and were to win, would they be entitled to counter sue for the expenses incurred?
No; however, nothing would prevent someone from suing the bastards in small claims court for the $ limit in that venue, for the economic damage they suffered as a direct cause of the original DN lawsuit. It would be a separate case entirely, and in the same vein that DN originally used (anyone can lodge suit anyone else for anything).

[hondoharry]

By all means try to settle with a lesser amount. They might perfer to wrap it up and eliminate the court costs.

GS2

Do you think that would work after the civil suit was filed?

[iq180]

i would like to see one go to court just to see what info they do have other than PP.

[hondoharry]

i would like to see one go to court just to see what info they do have other than PP.

Maybe I'll start a defence fund and get rich. PM me for PayPal info.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Do you think that would work after the civil suit was filed?


It might. Better chances are before when you received the demand letter.



GS2

[1boxman]

These are being done in civil ...but in Canada it can go either way .Am sure the same in the States . <br />
<br />
hxxp://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/ccl/aboutCopyright.html <br />
<br />
And at the bottom of this one by...

[alex70olds]

i would like to see one go to court just to see what info they do have other than PP.

You just might get your wish.

17711

[Condor]

You just might get your wish.

17711
There we go!!!!!!... About time....... http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/huntress976/big-balls.gif

[hondoharry]

You just might get your wish.

17711

Well good for Kailas. Hope he comes out of this unscathed. I see he's asking for his costs back. Everyone here says you can't do that.

c/p
Defendant prays that the Plaintiff take nothing and the Defendant have judgment against the Plaintiff and recover the costs of suit herein, and such other relief the court may deem proper.

[bkr™]

It will be interesting to see if others will follow with their own filings.

[fifties]

It will be interesting to see if others will follow with their own filings.
You can most like count on that if he wins.

I noticed that he is going to make DN prove that he has a satellite receiver, and that he connected to the server (just as I had suggested as a defense).

[pugsycan]

You can most like count on that if he wins.

I noticed that he is going to make DN prove that he has a satellite receiver, and that he connected to the server (just as I had suggested as a defense).
Was going to say Think he was reading? Lol

[hondoharry]

Looks like the 'yeah, that's me, I bought it but never used it' defense. Let's hope he kept his mouth shut in forums, PM's and emails. Something tells me he just lent his PayPal acct. for a friend who didn't have one and they picked him because he's a Texas homeboy.

Go Kailas!

Nice find, Alex.

[yappapi]

if i remember correctly..
Kailas case was one of the 1st several posted and someone(turd other site) posted a street view of his home(300k ish value?).
IMO it appears he has money and or good credit and can afford to challenge dn instead of roll over.
now if i'm wrong about the person or picture connection this post was just wasted bandwidth.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

You can most like count on that if he wins.

I noticed that he is going to make DN prove that he has a satellite receiver, and that he connected to the server (just as I had suggested as a defense).



He denies anything is what I read. That's his defense. That is pretty standard when you file a defense answer. That doesn't mean they are going to have to prove he had a sat receiver and connected to the server. He'll have to explain why he bought codes that only have one purpose but to access plaintiff's signals without legal authorization when deposed especially if he says he never owned a sat system. Why buy them than. The plaintiff might have server logs. They might have posts or private messages if they connected his name to an nick. They could go to his house and see if there is a dish pointing to their signals. They could go to his neighbor and and ask if he ever had a dish on his roof. If they find anything that would hurt his defense. Remember in civil if its more likely than not then you could lose. His defense can possibly work if its true and there is nothing incriminating that is found and if he doesn't make a mistake while being deposed, also explaning why he bought a subscription to an illegal service that makes sense. People just don't look to buy a subscription like that if they never own a sat receiver. What brought him to even go there. He doesn't deny the purchase. While these things might or might be proved what I am saying is that it might not be necessary as other factors could or could not come into play.


If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now. Unless they send out letters or file lawsuits over a year from now and longer defendants might not be in a position to wait.



GS2

[MarvinGardens]

If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now.
GS2

At this point the only one who is a sure winner is the defendant's attorney.

[jvvh5897]

Yep the attorneys always get paid.

One other point, has it been shown that prov is acting for the owners of the copyrights? If not then they can only file for damages that they incurred on stuff that they do have copyrights on--a tiny fraction of the total content, and the damages claimed for copyright violations are the bulk of the $3500 from what I can tell. And can it be shown that prov has ever payed copyright holders anything and how did they partition the recovered amounts--they could be in violation of copyright laws themselves though users can't do anything about that it could be something to use in court.

[fifties]

He denies anything is what I read. That's his defense. That is pretty standard when you file a defense answer. That doesn't mean they are going to have to prove he had a sat receiver and connected to the server. He'll have to explain why he bought codes that only have one purpose but to access plaintiff's signals without legal authorization when deposed especially if he says he never owned a sat system. Why buy them than. The plaintiff might have server logs. They might have posts or private messages if they connected his name to an nick. They could go to his house and see if there is a dish pointing to their signals. They could go to his neighbor and and ask if he ever had a dish on his roof. If they find anything that would hurt his defense. Remember in civil if its more likely than not then you could lose. His defense can possibly work if its true and there is nothing incriminating that is found and if he doesn't make a mistake while being deposed, also explaning why he bought a subscription to an illegal service that makes sense. People just don't look to buy a subscription like that if they never own a sat receiver. What brought him to even go there. He doesn't deny the purchase. While these things might or might be proved what I am saying is that it might not be necessary as other factors could or could not come into play.


If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now. Unless they send out letters or file lawsuits over a year from now and longer defendants might not be in a position to wait.


He doesn't deny the purchase. Of course not; they've got those goods on him.

But so far, that appears to be all they have. Now if, during the discovery phase, they bring out his ISP logs, showing connection to the IKS server's addy, I would say he's toast.

They will most likely never be able to prove that he owns a satellite receiver, unless they also have posts from a nic they can tie to him, discussing setting it up.

If there is evidence showing a dish on his roof, the D can simply be, "it was there when we moved into the house". There's no way they can disprove that.

His D testimony can simply be, "I had heard about this IKS thing from a friend, and bought the code since it was cheap enough, but never endeavored beyond that, to acquire a satellite receiver. It just all seemed too complicated for me". Remember, intent in a civil proceeding of this type, without showing actual evidence of mis-doing, is gonna be tough to get a judgment on.

AFA other cases, a request for continuance, based on the outcome of this trial, might work.

[1boxman]

Guess we will see if the server info and real proof that his receiver was receiving .

and I mean by server info ...if they did get the code from wuf (all his data)...they could have tested it themselves..to verified it worked .

But still have to proof he used it .

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Of course not; they've got those goods on him.

But so far, that appears to be all they have. Now if, during the discovery phase, they bring out his ISP logs, showing connection to the IKS server's addy, I would say he's toast.

They will most likely never be able to prove that he owns a satellite receiver, unless they also have posts from a nic they can tie to him, discussing setting it up.

If there is evidence showing a dish on his roof, the D can simply be, "it was there when we moved into the house". There's no way they can disprove that.

His D testimony can simply be, "I had heard about this IKS thing from a friend, and bought the code since it was cheap enough, but never endeavored beyond that, to acquire a satellite receiver. It just all seemed too complicated for me". Remember, intent in a civil proceeding of this type, without showing actual evidence of mis-doing, is gonna be tough to get a judgment on.

AFA other cases, a request for continuance, based on the outcome of this trial, might work.


To say that is all they appear to have is not the way to look at it in my opinion. They don't state what evidence they may or may not have to support their claim in the complaint. They can also pick up evidence after filling the complaint. I think your missing the requirement for civil whether its more likely than not. Those stories rarely work like I just bought this code because it was cheap but I never had a satellite receiver and did not know what it was for just it was cheap enough so why not buy it. The mis doing is buying a subcription to an illegal service that has only one purpose and you claiming you did not know what is for but you just buy things that are cheap as a matter of something you like to do is not too believable I would think.


I can't see any court saying lets stop the proceedings because of this other case. Never heard of that myself. It would really prejudice a Plaintiff.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Guess we will see if the server info and real proof that his receiver was receiving .

and I mean by server info ...if they did get the code from wuf (all his data)...they could have tested it themselves..to verified it worked .

But still have to proof he used it .



Do you think they have to be in house to have witnessed he used it. They can produce logs if they have any and than the defendant says well it was a shared computer in the house and it was not me. I could be wrong but don't think they have to prove he actually used it. Don't think they would be filling lawsuits if that was the case that law in civil required that. Its the preponderance of evidence giving weight to what side is morely likely or not.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Courts can use circumstantial evidence without direct evidence so it would be up to a court to determine if the circumstantial evidence was strong enough without having actually prove the use.




Circumstantial evidence can support a finding that a communication was intercepted, even absent direct evidence




("[D]irect evidence of a fact is not required. Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.").




GS2

[BPG]

You just might get your wish.

17711


Good For him.... I wish him the VERY best of luck !

BPG~

[JCO]

Good For him.... I wish him the VERY best of luck !

BPG~

Well the only thing left would be a subpoena of IP records ... If his home IP was conecting to an IKS server combined with the PP evidence his goose is cooked.. Even if he says his network was hacked..

[BPG]

Plenty to be said about a Wifi antenna ;)

[MarvinGardens]

His D testimony can simply be, "I had heard about this IKS thing from a friend, and bought the code since it was cheap enough, but never endeavored beyond that, to acquire a satellite receiver. It just all seemed too complicated for me".

That would be like saying "I bought a barrel of gasoline but then decided I did not want to go through the process of studying for my driver's license and then purchase a car. It turns out the test was too hard and car prices are beyond my finances".

Buying an IKS subscription would be your final step not your first step.

Your argument might fly in Mickey Mouse court but not in Federal court.

[budyyy]

If Oscar Pistorius can get bail, im sure we've got a fighting chance.. The courts aren't bound by logic aparently.

[bkr™]

If Oscar Pistorius can get bail, im sure we've got a fighting chance.. The courts aren't bound by logic aparently.

That is an interesting perception...hmmmm.:innocent:

[JCO]

If Oscar Pistorius can get bail, im sure we've got a fighting chance.. The courts aren't bound by logic aparently.

Well not all courts are South African..LOL

[iq180]

He denies anything is what I read. That's his defense. That is pretty standard when you file a defense answer. That doesn't mean they are going to have to prove he had a sat receiver and connected to the server. He'll have to explain why he bought codes that only have one purpose but to access plaintiff's signals without legal authorization when deposed especially if he says he never owned a sat system. Why buy them than. The plaintiff might have server logs. They might have posts or private messages if they connected his name to an nick. They could go to his house and see if there is a dish pointing to their signals. They could go to his neighbor and and ask if he ever had a dish on his roof. If they find anything that would hurt his defense. Remember in civil if its more likely than not then you could lose. His defense can possibly work if its true and there is nothing incriminating that is found and if he doesn't make a mistake while being deposed, also explaning why he bought a subscription to an illegal service that makes sense. People just don't look to buy a subscription like that if they never own a sat receiver. What brought him to even go there. He doesn't deny the purchase. While these things might or might be proved what I am saying is that it might not be necessary as other factors could or could not come into play.


If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now. Unless they send out letters or file lawsuits over a year from now and longer defendants might not be in a position to wait.



GS2
remember he did not buy a code, he sent a donation to an old man and used PP, no server logs or isp logs, no case.

[dishuser]

remember he did not buy a code, he sent a donation to an old man and used PP, no server logs or isp logs, no case.

donation?
really?
and you know this how?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

remember he did not buy a code, he sent a donation to an old man and used PP, no server logs or isp logs, no case.


Don't think the donation idea will be effective. I can't agree there is no case unless if they have server or ISP logs. Circumstantial evidence if good can be sufficient without having that direct evidence. We don't know what circumstantial evidence they may or may not have or what they will be able to get or not get. ISP's have cooperated before and if they say we need a court order courts usually issue one to plaintiff. If they have some incriminating message or email they won't need logs. At this point we don't know. With now having a defense from a defendant they will start looking for evidence to counter that defense. With no defense answer they don't have to bother with investigation. If this defendant is telling the truth than he could possibly have success but if hes not and they find something than not having server logs won't dictate that there is no case.




GS2

[fifties]

To say that is all they appear to have is not the way to look at it in my opinion. They don't state what evidence they may or may not have to support their claim in the complaint. They can also pick up evidence after filling the complaint. I think your missing the requirement for civil whether its more likely than not. Those stories rarely work like I just bought this code because it was cheap but I never had a satellite receiver
You continue to miss -or ignore- something I have continually posted, so I am going to isolate it for you; the term is...................................

"discovery".

I know that you know what this procedure is, but for the benefit of those who don't, it is the process wherein each side presents to the other all of their evidence, the purpose being that no surprises surface at the actual trial, and additionally the potential to settle and avoid trial, if one side sees an unavoidable defeat.

Now in this particular type of situation, IF Charlie's lawyer displays ISP logs showing a connection between the defendants ISP and the IKS server addy, and IF defense council advises against a claim that his client's WiFi must have been hacked, then the two pieces of evidence -the purchase of the code and the ISP logs- should be sufficient.

Don't forget, although Dave often won, he also lost cases where he tried to argue in court that folks purchasing items that could hack his service, actually did so with them. In fact, I believe at least one U.S. Circuit Court developed a backlash toward his tactics, after a period of time.

I still maintain that a D of "I bought the code, but never used it, because I never bought a receiver", is valid, and especially so if they can produce no logs.

But that's just my opinion.

[Hannibalector]

You continue to miss -or ignore- something I have continually posted, so I am going to isolate it for you; the term is...................................

"discovery".

I know that you know what this procedure is, but for the benefit of those who don't, it is the process wherein each side presents to the other all of their evidence, the purpose being that no surprises surface at the actual trial, and additionally the potential to settle and avoid trial, if one side sees an unavoidable defeat.

Now in this particular type of situation, IF Charlie's lawyer displays ISP logs showing a connection between the defendants ISP and the IKS server addy, and IF defense council advises against a claim that his client's WiFi must have been hacked, then the two pieces of evidence -the purchase of the code and the ISP logs- should be sufficient.

Don't forget, although Dave often won, he also lost cases where he tried to argue in court that folks purchasing items that could hack his service, actually did so with them. In fact, I believe at least one U.S. Circuit Court developed a backlash toward his tactics, after a period of time.

I still maintain that a D of "I bought the code, but never used it, because I never bought a receiver", is valid, and especially so if they can produce no logs. But that's just my opinion.

don't forget the bin, no bin or RQCS no go, nothing happens in IKS without the bins, factory bins and avr/computer connections alone won't do squat either, ergo the ISP record, ergo proof of a bin, dish and reciever are all legal equipment to own, evidence sure, but that equipment won't do anything unless tampered with

[alvirgieca]

ok guys lets hope that kailas magi win his case that way a lot of hobbyist that got letter had a fighting chance to win.

[hondoharry]

What about someone who bought the code on his PayPal acct. for a friend who had bad credit. He couldn't possibly be guilty of decrypting signals. Then again, it would cost more to defend.

[smallyjohnson]

before that defense is presented ...i would wait to see what evidence they trot out at deposition... I.E any proof you actually connected and do you own a STB with the required bin installed?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

You continue to miss -or ignore- something I have continually posted, so I am going to isolate it for you; the term is...................................

"discovery".


I posted it before you but you keep making comments like this regarding evidence so it is confusing. There always is more evidence than what the complaint says.



But so far, that appears to be all they have



I know that you know what this procedure is, but for the benefit of those who don't, it is the process wherein each side presents to the other all of their evidence, the purpose being that no surprises surface at the actual trial, and additionally the potential to settle and avoid trial, if one side sees an unavoidable defeat.

Now in this particular type of situation, IF Charlie's lawyer displays ISP logs showing a connection between the defendants ISP and the IKS server addy, and IF defense council advises against a claim that his client's WiFi must have been hacked, then the two pieces of evidence -the purchase of the code and the ISP logs- should be sufficient.

Don't forget, although Dave often won, he also lost cases where he tried to argue in court that folks purchasing items that could hack his service, actually did so with them. In fact, I believe at least one U.S. Circuit Court developed a backlash toward his tactics, after a period of time.

I still maintain that a D of "I bought the code, but never used it, because I never bought a receiver", is valid, and especially so if they can produce no logs.

But that's just my opinion.


A court will decide if it merits a win for the defendant so we are all speculating with our opinions. I am speculating that if logs are not produced it does not mean a win for the defendant automatically. If they have or obtained other circumstantial evidence like something incriminating the defewnant wrote in an email to wufman it won't matter if they have logs or not.It seems some people feel no logs case over without considering other possible circumstantial that may or may not come. You yourself seem to indicate no logs its especially valid. Its valid if he told the truth. Myself I can't understand why someone would buy a subscription to an illegal service especially if they claim they never owned a receiver. I think that will be open for question but if he told the truth than the plaintiff won't be able to find un truth.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

don't forget the bin, no bin or RQCS no go, nothing happens in IKS without the bins, factory bins and avr/computer connections alone won't do squat either, ergo the ISP record, ergo proof of a bin, dish and reciever are all legal equipment to own, evidence sure, but that equipment won't do anything unless tampered with


No bin does not mean no go. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Its the preponderance of the evidence. Your concept that they have show bins in a civil case is wrong.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

What about someone who bought the code on his PayPal acct. for a friend who had bad credit. He couldn't possibly be guilty of decrypting signals. Then again, it would cost more to defend.


So he is going to bring his friend in and name him. Next thing you know they could both have lawsuits and some conspiracy allegation to defend against. Of course the conspiracy allegation could/would be bulchit but than as you say it will cost to defend.




GS2

[surfinisfun]

As has already been said a thousand times here and elsewhere.....its all speculative but the difference now is the defendant gets to see what Dick has on him, can't do without his own legal action.

Server logs would be big but i doubt they have those....ISP logs would be easier to obtain but one would have to ask....if he connected and had pm's or e-mails that could be traced back than why would he bother fighting?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

This what they say in the complaint.



The allegations made by DISH Network concerning the whereabouts and wrongful conduct of Defendant are based on the investigation completed to date, and with the reasonable belief that further investigation and discovery in this action will lead to additional factual support. Therefore, DISH Network reserves the right to supplement or amend its claims and the basis for those claims, with leave of court if necessary, as additional investigation and discovery is conducted.


The problem is we know from the past they send out their investigation goons and very often to come up with more factual evidence. Now that this defendant answered with a defense they will. So if he told the truth its a valid defense to try. Whether its successful will be up to the court. But if they find some un truth than it will be quite harmful to his creditibility and logs won't be necesarry. It might only be necessary or would have been necesaarry if the court says there is not enough proof that he did intercepted the signal with the court interpretating it as necesarry.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

As has already been said a thousand times here and elsewhere.....its all speculative but the difference now is the defendant gets to see what Dick has on him, can't do without his own legal action.

Server logs would be big but i doubt they have those....ISP logs would be easier to obtain but one would have to ask....if he connected and had pm's or e-mails that could be traced back than why would he bother fighting?



Some people and even lawyers are not always familar with what they do so they don't anticipate what could be possibly coming. Sometimes clients don't disclose everything to their lawyer so the lawyer might not know about emails or Pm's till it might be brought out.


This is why its importment that his defense statement is truthful. If it is than he'll have a defense to try all the way till the end. If not than likely will not make it to the end for a possible successful decision in his favor.



GS2

[surfinisfun]

Nope, that does not wash....

Its not a murder or child porn case so chances are he will tell his lawyer everything, he has no reason not to. Full disclosure should not be an issue unless he's guilty or an idiot.

[MarvinGardens]

Some people and even lawyers are not always familar with what they do so they don't anticipate what could be possibly coming. Sometimes clients don't disclose everything to their lawyer so the lawyer might not know about emails or Pm's till it might be brought out.
GS2

That is correct. And looking at his attorney's profile:

hXXp://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=151535

He lists his practice to business, taxation and property matters. Hardly someone you would want to be involved in a highly specialized copyright case.

It appears that he did some research on the issue and has turned up the DTV case.

In that case the court held that simply being in possession of two devices (ISO programmer and unlooper) that could be used to hack an access card was not enough proof. The court struggled with their ruling even saying it was tempting to find for DTV but since those two devices could be used for something other than hacking they had to find against DTV.

The court went on to say that if DTV had provided some proof that the defendant had satellite equipment that may have tipped the scales to them.

So this lawyer reads the DTV case and almost verbatim claims that DN has no actual proof that their signal was hacked.

The big difference between this case and the DTV case is that subscribing to an IKS service only has one purpose.

[budyyy]

^ maybe he sent the donation to support the servers endeavors but never meant to receive a code/never wanted one. Unless he specified in emails/pms exactly what he wanted, they can't prove he meant to receive the codes. After all if you sent 20$ to the red cross and they email you child porn, are you really to blame for receiving it? Of course not, unless they can prove you asked for the porn to be sent to you

[fifties]

I posted it before you but you keep making comments like this regarding evidence so it is confusing. There always is more evidence than what the complaint says.
Yes, and it comes out in the DISCOVERY phase. That would be when the defendant must decide if he wants to take it to trial or not.



A court will decide if it merits a win for the defendant so we are all speculating with our opinions. I am speculating that if logs are not produced it does not mean a win for the defendant automatically. If they have or obtained other circumstantial evidence like something incriminating the defewnant wrote in an email to wufman it won't matter if they have logs or not.It seems some people feel no logs case over without considering other possible circumstantial that may or may not come. You yourself seem to indicate no logs its especially valid. Its valid if he told the truth. Myself I can't understand why someone would buy a subscription to an illegal service especially if they claim they never owned a receiver. I think that will be open for question but if he told the truth than the plaintiff won't be able to find un truth.

I maintain that W/O logs, they simply can't prove that he used the codes. And to get those logs, I would speculate, would require a subpoena. I can see a judge signing one on a dealer, but for an end-user, it just might be considered an unreasonable invasion of his privacy, given the lesser weight of the alleged offense.

Now this idea of yours (and some others) that, because he purchased the codes, he must have used them, or why did he buy them in the first place doesn't completely hold water, and here's why;

Almost everyone, at some time, has bought something or other and just put it away, unopened. So why would this behavior be any different? In fact, it carries more weight in this situation, because the codes are dependent on the ownership of both a satellite receiver and dish antenna. They are of no use, all by themselves.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Nope, that does not wash....

Its not a murder or child porn case so chances are he will tell his lawyer everything, he has no reason not to. Full disclosure should not be an issue unless he's guilty or an idiot.


His reason not to is because he might not think or anticipate some possible email or Pm is going to fall into the Plaintiffs or there will be some possible court order to his ISP or PayPal or whoever to turn over records. He may not think or anticipate that the Plaintiff could go to one of his neighbors in hope of gathering information that we have just recently seen in a case so in his mind he could be possibly saying to himself why tell his lawyer I am not going to be caught.



I say this because it is so unlikely someone decided to buy a subscription to that service without being able to use it. I don't think in reality people do that.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

^ maybe he sent the donation to support the servers endeavors but never meant to receive a code/never wanted one. Unless he specified in emails/pms exactly what he wanted, they can't prove he meant to receive the codes. After all if you sent 20$ to the red cross and they email you child porn, are you really to blame for receiving it? Of course not, unless they can prove you asked for the porn to be sent to you


Wufman is not the Red Cross. He was running an illegal service.



GS2

[1boxman]

Wufman is not the Red Cross. He was running an illegal service.



GS2

He was ?? Which one ?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Yes, and it comes out in the DISCOVERY phase. That would be when the defendant must decide if he wants to take it to trial or not.


I maintain that W/O logs, they simply can't prove that he used the codes. And to get those logs, I would speculate, would require a subpoena. I can see a judge signing one on a dealer, but for an end-user, it just might be considered an unreasonable invasion of his privacy, given the lesser weight of the alleged offense.

Now this idea of yours (and some others) that, because he purchased the codes, he must have used them, or why did he buy them in the first place doesn't completely hold water, and here's why;

Almost everyone, at some time, has bought something or other and just put it away, unopened. So why would this behavior be any different? In fact, it carries more weight in this situation, because the codes are dependent on the ownership of both a satellite receiver and dish antenna. They are of no use, all by themselves.


Heres the problem you think they must prove he used it. I don't agree with that. If they pick up an incriminating email from the defendant why would they have to prove he used it or have server logs. This is civil court where the decision goes to where the preponderance of the evidence has more weight. If the defenant says in an email to wufman just as an example, why is it in the last two days the PPV's are not working do you think they have to actually prove he used it.


I don't agree with your therory that people buy some illegal service and just put it away. People buy things and can just put it away but we are talking about buying something that is illegal. People don't just buy illegal things in my opinion. I think most people will stay away from purchasing illegal things to avoid trouble. Why would anyone put themselves at risk like that unless they wanted to participate seems more logical to me.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

He was ?? Which one ?


The Nfusion Privare server known as NFPS. Now if you want to get technical maybe wufman was not running it I don't know, but it seems he was selling subscriptions to it according to what I have read. If he wasn't then there would be no case as they rely on his records they obtained.



GS2

[surfinisfun]

His reason not to is because he might not think or anticipate some possible email or Pm is going to fall into the Plaintiffs or there will be some possible court order to his ISP or PayPal or whoever to turn over records. He may not think or anticipate that the Plaintiff could go to one of his neighbors in hope of gathering information that we have just recently seen in a case so in his mind he could be possibly saying to himself why tell his lawyer I am not going to be caught.



I say this because it is so unlikely someone decided to buy a subscription to that service without being able to use it. I don't think in reality people do that.



GS2

Man, i realize you think you are being the sound of reason but.......

Lets let this thing start before you finish it...gezzz

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Man, i realize you think you are being the sound of reason but.......

Lets let this thing start before you finish it...gezzz


I don't understand your point. Everyone is commenting and giving their opinions because there is a discussion thread on it. We all know it won't be finished for quite sometime. It already started and this is no different than other past discussions on cases that had started.


You made a statement and said why would he have a reason not to disclose everything. I gave you my opinion on why.




GS2

[surfinisfun]

I don't understand your point. Everyone is commenting and giving their opinions because there is a discussion thread on it. We all know it won't be finished for quite sometime. It already started and this is no different than other past discussions on cases that had started.


You made a statement and said why would he have a reason not to disclose everything. I gave you my opinion on why.




GS2

Yes you did GS,

I guess some will look at it from the offensive side, others defensive.

Hopefully one wins.lol

[Hannibalector]

That is correct. And looking at his attorney's profile:

hXXp://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=151535

He lists his practice to business, taxation and property matters. Hardly someone you would want to be involved in a highly specialized copyright case.

It appears that he did some research on the issue and has turned up the DTV case.

In that case the court held that simply being in possession of two devices (ISO programmer and unlooper) that could be used to hack an access card was not enough proof. The court struggled with their ruling even saying it was tempting to find for DTV but since those two devices could be used for something other than hacking they had to find against DTV.

The court went on to say that if DTV had provided some proof that the defendant had satellite equipment that may have tipped the scales to them.

So this lawyer reads the DTV case and almost verbatim claims that DN has no actual proof that their signal was hacked.

The big difference between this case and the DTV case is that subscribing to an IKS service only has one purpose.

you sure like to speculate don't you, what breach of copyright does purchase have without proof of breach of copyright ?

btw toss credentials elswhere

[Hannibalector]

No bin does not mean no go. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Its the preponderance of the evidence. Your concept that they have show bins in a civil case is wrong.



GS2

oh ? it's the only way to intercept the damned CW's which infact breaches as for mentioned here in this quote by you below

This what they say in the complaint.





The problem is we know from the past they send out their investigation goons and very often to come up with more factual evidence. Now that this defendant answered with a defense they will. So if he told the truth its a valid defense to try. Whether its successful will be up to the court. But if they find some un truth than it will be quite harmful to his creditibility and logs won't be necesarry. It might only be necessary or would have been necesaarry if the court says there is not enough proof that he did intercepted the signal with the court interpretating it as necesarry.




GS2

[dishuser]

you sure like to speculate don't you, what breach of copyright does purchase have without proof of breach of copyright ?

btw toss credentials elswhere
how is it speculation?
what other reason would there be to subscribe to a service?

[Hannibalector]

how is it speculation?
what other reason would there be to subscribe to a service?

he thought he was subscribing to Time Life, you got a problem with that ?

[Hannibalector]

GS2 heres a question for you which could determine the outcome of these sites, if it is required to prove breach by way of interception of the signal from bins dl'ed can sites be subpeoned for there DB with regards to evidence of DL's ?

because if so and Nagra shows a downloaded bin theres a lot of explaining to do

[dishuser]

he thought he was subscribing to Time Life, you got a problem with that ?
so he borrowed your brain that day?lol

[surfinisfun]

Its to bad there were not more men like fifties around.

nuf said.

[Hannibalector]

so he borrowed your brain that day?lol

if he did it would be miles above yours dishuser

[dishuser]

if he did it would be miles above yours dishuser

you just proved your ignorance with that sentence

[Hannibalector]

you just proved your ignorance with that sentence

stop trying to pretend everyone knows you pretend, it's what makes you loveable to this site and this site only

[dishuser]

stop trying to pretend everyone knows you pretend, it's what makes you loveable to this site and this site only

you need to get out more

[surfinisfun]

And another thread lost in old boy/school girl crap.....

Back to topic please.

[Hannibalector]

It might only be necessary or would have been necesaarry if the court says there is not enough proof that he did intercepted the signal with the court interpretating it as necesarry. quote GS2


IKs can only happen by means of a Nagra image, by means of connectivity from bins from fta's posted with dongle transmission or RQSC and a serial port with a valid rom image, purchases of codes to hook up proves nothing towards breach of copyright, once an image along with a bin is utilized can the claim be made of copyright infringement <---notice the word,

[jazzman]

OK, this thread is serious so let's not turn it into a bash fest...back to topic please, thank you.

[Hannibalector]

GS2 heres a question for you which could determine the outcome of these sites, if it is required to prove breach by way of interception of the signal from bins dl'ed can sites be subpeoned for there DB with regards to evidence of DL's ?

because if so and Nagra shows a downloaded bin theres a lot of explaining to do

bump..............

[MarvinGardens]

purchases of codes to hook up proves nothing towards breach of copyright, once an image along with a bin is utilized can the claim be made of copyright infringement <---notice the word,

On the contrary. You will see declarations presented to the court from DN investigators who subscribed to the same IKS service. They will state under oath that the purchase and use of these access codes allowed them to view DN's programming without paying DN.

Then DN will present evidence to the court that the defendant purchased the same kind of subscription. That is more than enough circumstantial evidence for the court to find against the defendant.

[Hannibalector]

On the contrary. You will see declarations presented to the court from DN investigators who subscribed to the same IKS service. They will state under oath that the purchase and use of these access codes allowed them to view DN's programming without paying DN.

Then DN will present evidence to the court that the defendant purchased the same kind of subscription. That is more than enough circumstantial evidence for the court to find against the defendant.

keep going the viewers havn't got enough from you Marvin, tell us more, how did the dish network subverts view programming unauthorized, do tell Marvin, I don't give a **** about circumstantial evidence, where did they get the bin to do so Marvin ?

[dishuser]

keep going the viewers havn't got enough from you Marvin, tell us more, how did the dish network subverts view programming unauthorized, do tell Marvin, I don't give a **** about circumstantial evidence, where did they get the bin to do so Marvin ?are you delusional?
how many public sites are out there?lol

[Hannibalector]

remember Marvin these threads are read and used as evidence in trial procedings are you saying that dishnetwork downloded bins and used them for testimony as evidence ? that can only mean one thing Marvin

[Hannibalector]

are you delusional?
how many public sites are out there?lol

how many attached to Kailis ?

[Hannibalector]

who's side are you on?

[Hannibalector]

Marvin why did Kudelski supply a card that was already compromised in Europe ? visa vie IKS why is that ?

[KIDWCKED]

who's side are you on ?

Hey lector..Drift.....................

[Hannibalector]

Marvin everyone needs to hear from you on many subjects you wish to discuss, tell us more

[dishuser]

Marvin why did Kudelski supply a card that was already compromised in Europe ? visa vie IKS why is that ?

why not email them?
since they are the only people who can answer

[Hannibalector]

Hey lector..Drift.....................

when you and the staff can explain why it is that I invited someone here that has been through more crap then IKs will ever know and he gets denied access says to me KID you haven't got a clue what you are up against, puff that chest amigo

[1boxman]

The Nfusion Privare server known as NFPS. Now if you want to get technical maybe wufman was not running it I don't know, but it seems he was selling subscriptions to it according to what I have read. If he wasn't then there would be no case as they rely on his records they obtained.



GS2

So you are assuming ?
Being a salesman or selling is illegal ?

[Hannibalector]

why not email them?
since they are the only people who can answer

stop trying to play smart because you play better then you appear

[dishuser]

stop trying to play smart because you play better then you appear
you ask for seconds from that stick?

[Hannibalector]

you ask for seconds from that stick?

you lost the crowd with that one

[dishuser]

you lost the crowd with that one
that means you got seconds...lol

[Hannibalector]

you ask for seconds from that stick?

why is it that you can be a wealth of info for sat set up and turn the other cheak when you get nailed to the cross on morality and evidentury

[dishuser]

why is it that you can be a wealth of info for sat set up and turn the other cheak when you get nailed to the cross on morality and evidentury
excuse me?
who is nailing me?

[fonger]

Okay, back on topic...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

So you are assuming ?
Being a salesman or selling is illegal ?



Not for legal products. But if you look at the TDG case he was a salesman for Viewsat ( illegal ) and was found liable in his Civil lawsuit. They will come after you alleging you assisted others to violate the statue. I am assuming wufman avoided legal action by handing over his business records. Was he sued. ?



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Yes you did GS,

I guess some will look at it from the offensive side, others defensive.

Hopefully one wins.lol


I hope someone wins and if this defendant is not found to be not telling truth then the court will have to weight the evidence if its persuasive enough. If its not than the ruling can help others. I hope hes telling the truth because than it would make sense to support him even with donations if requested. I like that his defense is not that you have the wrong person strategy, its I did not have the ingredients to intercept, circumvent, so it could come down to a matter of law for a court to interpretate. I do think the purchasing of these codes is harmful more than purchasing an unlooper because its hard or almost impossible to come up with an alternative reason what you were going to do with these codes while its more possible with an unlooper to come up with something. I believe that alone is a difficult barrier to over come by itself. This is civil not criminal where you do need much more compelling evidence.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

oh ? it's the only way to intercept the damned CW's which infact breaches as for mentioned here in this quote by you below


I did not say that. I said it might only be necessary if a court said there is not enough proof that he did intercept the signal. If that happens than other defendants can say there is not enough proof not that the only way to intercept is by having a bin. If they prove he had a pirate receiver they don't than have to prove he had a bin. By having the receiver it shows he had the equipment if the court says the purchase is not enough. Courts before in dave cases did not say the defendant did not have the bin they said there was no proof provided that he had the receiver. Now that was on on one statue not on the DMCA so don't know if that would carry over to the DMCA.


The court does not need to decide that the only way to intercept is if he had a bin. The court could likely not know what a bin is. They only need to decide if its more likely than not and that can happen with the purchase and lets say an incriminating email. They do not need to determine if he had a bin. Its not a requirement as you propose. It was not a requirement in the DA cases. I don't know about the purchase. Was the payment a one shot deal or was it monthly payment. ? If it was monthly and the defendant kept paying for a considerable time than that is more circumstantial evidence. People as a rule don't keep paying month after month for something they say they never used. A court needs to decide what is more likely not that they have to determine that the defendant had a bin. Its not a Perry Mason situation.





GS2

[fifties]

If they pick up an incriminating email from the defendant why would they have to prove he used it or have server logs.

If the defenant says in an email to wufman just as an example, why is it in the last two days the PPV's are not working do you think they have to actually prove he used it.
"If" is a small word, with a large consequence, my friend.

Yes, "if" they had other correspondence verifying obvious usage, there's no question the defendant is toast...IF.

Lacking that, we are again looking at the purchase of a code as the only alleged evidence of signal theft and violation of the DMCA. I am now saying that it's "alleged" because that's exactly what it is...Evidence has to be used to prove a point, and this one item used by itself would pose a somewhat specious conclusion. You tend to think that it's enough to tip the scales 51%...I don't.



I don't agree with your therory that people buy some illegal service and just put it away. People buy things and can just put it away but we are talking about buying something that is illegal. People don't just buy illegal things in my opinion.
GS2
You are missing a primary point here; because it can lead to illegal doings is a very motivational reason to in fact "put it away"...More so than if it were completely legal.



On the contrary. You will see declarations presented to the court from DN investigators who subscribed to the same IKS service. They will state under oath that the purchase and use of these access codes allowed them to view DN's programming without paying DN.

Then DN will present evidence to the court that the defendant purchased the same kind of subscription. That is more than enough circumstantial evidence for the court to find against the defendant.
I don't think so.

All DN's stooges are doing, in your example, is showing the court how the theft of service operation works, by posing as customers.

Their actions reflect not a whit on what the defendant did or didn't do, AFA using or not using the service. Yes, he bought a code, then states that he got cold feet...Prove that he used it...

[1boxman]

Not for legal products. But if you look at the TDG case he was a salesman for Viewsat ( illegal ) and was found liable in his Civil lawsuit. They will come after you alleging you assisted others to violate the statue. I am assuming wufman avoided legal action by handing over his business records. Was he sued. ?


GS2

I do not think he alleged on being a salesman only ..was more for involvement on sites .

But wuf is not on trial (being that he rolled over his info )..more the people he dealt with .

[kutter]

"If" is a small word, with a large consequence, my friend.

Yes, "if" they had other correspondence verifying obvious usage, there's no question the defendant is toast...IF.

Lacking that, we are again looking at the purchase of a code as the only alleged evidence of signal theft and violation of the DMCA. I am now saying that it's "alleged" because that's exactly what it is...Evidence has to be used to prove a point, and this one item used by itself would pose a somewhat specious conclusion. You tend to think that it's enough to tip the scales 51%...I don't.


You are missing a primary point here; because it can lead to illegal doings is a very motivational reason to in fact "put it away"...More so than if it were completely legal.



I don't think so.

All DN's stooges are doing, in your example, is showing the court how the theft of service operation works, by posing as customers.

Their actions reflect not a whit on what the defendant did or didn't do, AFA using or not using the service. Yes, he bought a code, then states that he got cold feet...Prove that he used it...

Interesting argument Fifties, isn't intent covered by the DMCA though. The fact that the defendant admitted to buying the codes, shows that he intended to use it, or why bother purchasing. They only have to demonstrate that you knew what the code was for. To argue that you purchased it, knowing full well what it was for, simply puts the nail in the coffin. Haven't you given them the evidence they need.

[jeldf]

Interesting argument Fifties, isn't intent covered by the DMCA though. The fact that the defendant admitted to buying the codes, shows that he intended to use it, or why bother purchasing. They only have to demonstrate that you knew what the code was for. To argue that you purchased it, knowing full well what it was for, simply puts the nail in the coffin. Haven't you given them the evidence they need.

Welcome to satFIX kutter.......glad you joined to give your opinion!

[kutter]

Welcome to satFIX kutter.......glad you joined to give your opinion!

I'm not good at detecting sarcasm ... so I'll take that as a genuine welcome :)

[iq180]

there i a way to stop all this court crap, give the server 1 legal use, like a news CH you could seream from the internet or any thing
like that would work, then it would have a legal use and that would put an end to the court case.

[hondoharry]

I can think of good reasons for buying codes without intending to use them - resell them, Christmas/birthday gift to a loved one/friend, for a friend with no PP. Evidently reselling is not illegal, otherwise they'd be suing Wuf. lol

[hondoharry]

there i a way to stop all this court crap, give the server 1 legal use, like a news CH you could seream from the internet or any thing
like that would work, then it would have a legal use and that would put an end to the court case.

Wasn't that tried with a weather map somewhere?

[hondoharry]

If they can follow the money trail from end user to Wuf and he's singing like a bird, why can't they follow the money trail from Wuf to NFPS/Rocket?

[DualTest]

Wasn't that tried with a weather map somewhere?

I believe that was the "official" reason for the Nfusions having an ethernet port. And was included in the factory software.

[iq180]

If they can follow the money trail from end user to Wuf and he's singing like a bird, why can't they follow the money trail from Wuf to NFPS/Rocket?
they can, but it want do them any good, the server is not in the U.S.
i say if the server had a legal use then you could say thats why i have a code and thats all i use it for, and all this crap would be over, end of case.

[fifties]

Interesting argument Fifties, isn't intent covered by the DMCA though. The fact that the defendant admitted to buying the codes, shows that he intended to use it, or why bother purchasing. They only have to demonstrate that you knew what the code was for. To argue that you purchased it, knowing full well what it was for, simply puts the nail in the coffin. Haven't you given them the evidence they need.
IDK if the term, "intent", is covered in the DMCA. AFAIK, "intent" is normally used in criminal cases, which this is not.

Of course we are all just speculating at this point. If we see several court cases emerge, a pattern may be developed, determining if purchase by itself with no corroborating additional evidence, is sufficient to tilt the justice scale.

I would like to think that a somewhat more convincing set of circumstances exists, before a plaintiff can get awarded a money judgment.

Posts discussing setup in a forum, PM's discussing usage of the code, proof of the ownership of a satellite receiver, and/or proof of the existence of a satellite dish, and of course logs obtained from the ISP showing multiple connections to the server IP would seem not all that hard to get, and IMHO at least one should be required, to support the notion that the defendant followed through and actually did purloin DN's signal.

Just because there is proof that one bought bullets, doesn't prove that he either has a gun, or fired any.


they can, but it want do them any good, the server is not in the U.S.
i say if the server had a legal use then you could say thats why i have a code and thats all i use it for, and all this crap would be over, end of case.
Well, the Viewsat Weather Forecaster scheme apparently didn't work, so why would this be any different?

And it really doesn't matter about where the server is located, as much as the country of residence of it's owner(s), given that they would be bound by their countries laws.

[iq180]

IDK if the term, "intent", is covered in the DMCA. AFAIK, "intent" is normally used in criminal cases, which this is not.

Of course we are all just speculating at this point. If we see several court cases emerge, a pattern may be developed, determining if purchase by itself with no corroborating additional evidence, is sufficient to tilt the justice scale.

I would like to think that a somewhat more convincing set of circumstances exists, before a plaintiff can get awarded a money judgment.

Posts discussing setup in a forum, PM's discussing usage of the code, proof of the ownership of a satellite receiver, and/or proof of the existence of a satellite dish, and of course logs obtained from the ISP showing multiple connections to the server IP would seem not all that hard to get, and IMHO at least one should be required, to support the notion that the defendant followed through and actually did purloin DN's signal.

Just because there is proof that one bought bullets, doesn't prove that he either has a gun, or fired any.


Well, the Viewsat Weather Forecaster scheme apparently didn't work, so why would this be any different?

And it really doesn't matter about where the server is located, as much as the country of residence of it's owner(s), given that they would be bound by their countries laws.
did you ever see the weather on the weather forecaster, all they need is one legal use for the server, just one.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

"If" is a small word, with a large consequence, my friend.

Yes, "if" they had other correspondence verifying obvious usage, there's no question the defendant is toast...IF.

Lacking that, we are again looking at the purchase of a code as the only alleged evidence of signal theft and violation of the DMCA. I am now saying that it's "alleged" because that's exactly what it is...Evidence has to be used to prove a point, and this one item used by itself would pose a somewhat specious conclusion. You tend to think that it's enough to tip the scales 51%...I don't.



So than your saying if they find incriminating emails or messages that they don't need the server logs ? It appeared to me that you have been saying no server logs to show a connection than no case so not sure where you stand on this. The evidence is the purchase of the codes from an illegal service. That alone in my opinion is compelling.Though I am speculating there will be more evidence and think the defendant is going to have a hard time explaining why he bought those codes.



You are missing a primary point here; because it can lead to illegal doings is a very motivational reason to in fact "put it away"...More so than if it were completely legal.


I don't see your speculation of putting away as a primary point. I see the primary point being the defendant spent money to subscribe to an illegal service that only has one purpose but to received signals from the plaintiff unlawfully.




I don't think so.

All DN's stooges are doing, in your example, is showing the court how the theft of service operation works, by posing as customers.

Their actions reflect not a whit on what the defendant did or didn't do, AFA using or not using the service. Yes, he bought a code, then states that he got cold feet...Prove that he used it...


The testimony from their investigator saying what he was able to do has been done several times in other cases. That testimony is for the court to show it was able to be done. As far as proving that the defendant used it circumstantial evidence can be accepted by courts with regards to useage.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I do not think he alleged on being a salesman only ..was more for involvement on sites .

But wuf is not on trial (being that he rolled over his info )..more the people he dealt with .


His involvment on sites was to promote the Viewsat products for sale acting as their spokesperson. Yes Wuf is not on trail but he could possibly be used as a support witness for the plaintiff if he cooperated. That is why I asked if he was sued.



GS2

[fifties]

did you ever see the weather on the weather forecaster, all they need is one legal use for the server, just one.
I never had a WF dongle, so never connected to their server to see if weather forecasts were there.

Apparently however, since no other IKS service that I've heard of uses that tactic, it doesn't seem to be a viable "excuse".


So than your saying if they find incriminating emails or messages that they don't need the server logs ? It appeared to me that you have been saying no server logs to show a connection than no case so not sure where you stand on this. The evidence is the purchase of the codes from an illegal service. That alone in my opinion is compelling.Though I am speculating there will be more evidence and think the defendant is going to have a hard time explaining why he bought those codes.
You have brought up the specter of incriminating posts at "FTA" and IKS server forums, AWA damaging emails or PM's, acknowledging usage, by the defendant.

I can agree that those would most likely seal the deal for DN, W/O the need for ISP logs, showing connection to the server. Now without those items, then I would say the logs would need to be shown, to establish proof that the defendant did in fact, "pull the trigger".



I don't see your speculation of putting away as a primary point. I see the primary point being the defendant spent money to subscribe to an illegal service that only has one purpose but to received signals from the plaintiff unlawfully.
The point was that a person would be more likely to have second thoughts, and put away an item of questionable legality, than one of which legality was no concern.



The testimony from their investigator saying what he was able to do has been done several times in other cases. That testimony is for the court to show it was able to be done. As far as proving that the defendant used it circumstantial evidence can be accepted by courts with regards to useage.

And your (their) circumstantial evidence is simply and only proof that the defendant bought the code.

Nothing showing that he used it, or even had the equipment necessary to make it work.
No records displaying a discussion of any problems with it, how to set it up, what channels would be available, how long it was good for, what IP to use to connect to.

Your contention is that his purchase displayed an initial intent, and that should be good enough to garner a judgment against him.

Mine is that this isn't a criminal court felony case, where mere intent might be enough, but a relatively low level civil action, where just a little more would need to be proven by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff; he bought the code
Defendant; I never used it
50/50 so far.
The plaintiff would need to push it over the edge, even ever so slightly, with another tidbit of evidence.

[iq180]

ok fifties, remember when DTV sent out the demand letters for the unloopers/programers/ then one case went to court and they
proved that it did have some legal use and that was the end of that, now if the server had a legal use then would that not be the same thing, they could not use the isp or server logs in court or the fact that you did buy a code.

[fifties]

The fact that these and the Dave cases both concern possible hacking of a satellite signal is about their only similarity.

There is no question that the server, and by extension the codes to access it, are in violation of the DMCA, and would therefore be deemed illegal.

The question might be, did the individual who purchased the code actually use it, or is the fact that he bought it sufficient for a judgment against him.

[JCO]

The fact that these and the Dave cases both concern possible hacking of a satellite signal is about their only similarity.

There is no question that the server, and by extension the codes to access it, are in violation of the DMCA, and would therefore be deemed illegal.


The question might be, did the individual who purchased the code actually use it, or is the fact that he bought it sufficient for a judgment against him.

Umm so a non tobacco smoker could be imprisoned for buying or owning rolling papers...
What else would he use them for other than rolling up a doobie..

[iq180]

The fact that these and the Dave cases both concern possible hacking of a satellite signal is about their only similarity.

There is no question that the server, and by extension the codes to access it, are in violation of the DMCA, and would therefore be deemed illegal.

The question might be, did the individual who purchased the code actually use it, or is the fact that he bought it sufficient for a judgment against him.

yes this is true but if the server had one legal use, then the code was to be used for that one legal use, so the DMCA would
not apply.

[1boxman]

yes this is true but if the server had one legal use, then the code was to be used for that one legal use, so the DMCA would
not apply.

I doubt the server for weather was the same one .

Being that hub was able to get the weather ...(like kbox did ) would be for the sale of the hardware .
I see what you are saying ..But having a connection at the same server ..differently not good .

[1boxman]

His involvment on sites was to promote the Viewsat products for sale acting as their spokesperson. Yes Wuf is not on trail but he could possibly be used as a support witness for the plaintiff if he cooperated. That is why I asked if he was sued.



GS2
He was a spokesman for viewsat ? or for the so called third party bins ?

I have said this before ..If they use wuf to testify against the plaintiffs ..question would..whether they have enough ..Being it is civil they may not need to prove it was used .

[fifties]

Umm so a non tobacco smoker could be imprisoned for buying or owning rolling papers...
What else would he use them for other than rolling up a doobie..
There we go again, confusing criminal with civil. Different courts, different standards.


He was a spokesman for viewsat ? or for the so called third party bins ?

I have said this before ..If they use wuf to testify against the plaintiffs ..question would..whether they have enough ..Being it is civil they may not need to prove it was used .

AFA TDG, he was a promoter for Viewsat, and the primary legal thrust against him was for his posting of bins on the various "FTA" forums. IDK if anyone remembers, but DN used forum counters showing the number of downloads of each bin, for their calculation of their "damages". The judgment was over 50 million, BTW. It was at his trial, in fact, that a judge ruled the decryption bins were illegal. Before that, they were never ID'd as such.

Why would they need Wuf to testify, BTW? They already have proof that the codes were purchased, and would also have any email correspondence between his buyers and himself. I don't see where any testimony from him could further harm the defendants, by aiding DN.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

You have brought up the specter of incriminating posts at "FTA" and IKS server forums, AWA damaging emails or PM's, acknowledging usage, by the defendant.

I can agree that those would most likely seal the deal for DN, W/O the need for ISP logs, showing connection to the server. Now without those items, then I would say the logs would need to be shown, to establish proof that the defendant did in fact, "pull the trigger".


If the find he had or bought a receiver ( leaving out that he said he didn't ) in your opinion would they still need to show logs to establish proof that the defendant did in fact pulled the trigger. ?



And your (their) circumstantial evidence is simply and only proof that the defendant bought the code.

Nothing showing that he used it, or even had the equipment necessary to make it work.
No records displaying a discussion of any problems with it, how to set it up, what channels would be available, how long it was good for, what IP to use to connect to.

Your contention is that his purchase displayed an initial intent, and that should be good enough to garner a judgment against him.

Mine is that this isn't a criminal court felony case, where mere intent might be enough, but a relatively low level civil action, where just a little more would need to be proven by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff; he bought the code
Defendant; I never used it
50/50 so far.
The plaintiff would need to push it over the edge, even ever so slightly, with another tidbit of evidence.


We don't know what circumstantial evidence they have or could get along the way. Yes I believe buying a subscription to codes that have only one purpose shows intent. I believe the codes would fall under the description below from the DMCA. I believe buying the codes is more damaging than buying an unlooper.




they are primarily designed or produced to circumvent;
they have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
than to circumvent;




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I doubt the server for weather was the same one .

Being that hub was able to get the weather ...(like kbox did ) would be for the sale of the hardware .
I see what you are saying ..But having a connection at the same server ..differently not good .


The one with the weather was debunked in court with an expert testifying. I have to look it up as don't remember exactly but something to do with how it worked or that it didn't work or couldn't work.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

There we go again, confusing criminal with civil. Different courts, different standards.



AFA TDG, he was a promoter for Viewsat, and the primary legal thrust against him was for his posting of bins on the various "FTA" forums. IDK if anyone remembers, but DN used forum counters showing the number of downloads of each bin, for their calculation of their "damages". The judgment was over 50 million, BTW. It was at his trial, in fact, that a judge ruled the decryption bins were illegal. Before that, they were never ID'd as such.

Why would they need Wuf to testify, BTW? They already have proof that the codes were purchased, and would also have any email correspondence between his buyers and himself. I don't see where any testimony from him could further harm the defendants, by aiding DN.



It didn't come up before for lack of trial with posting bins and it doesn't mean it was legal before that ruling. I think with reading the DMCA and case law it would be more clear that it was always illegal from the DMCA and rulings in 2000 by Judge Kaplan. Posters before of code or software were found liable. Even posting a link on a site to software on another site was ruled as a violation.




GS2

[kutter]

IDK if the term, "intent", is covered in the DMCA. AFAIK, "intent" is normally used in criminal cases, which this is not.

Of course we are all just speculating at this point. If we see several court cases emerge, a pattern may be developed, determining if purchase by itself with no corroborating additional evidence, is sufficient to tilt the justice scale.

I would like to think that a somewhat more convincing set of circumstances exists, before a plaintiff can get awarded a money judgment.

Posts discussing setup in a forum, PM's discussing usage of the code, proof of the ownership of a satellite receiver, and/or proof of the existence of a satellite dish, and of course logs obtained from the ISP showing multiple connections to the server IP would seem not all that hard to get, and IMHO at least one should be required, to support the notion that the defendant followed through and actually did purloin DN's signal.

Just because there is proof that one bought bullets, doesn't prove that he either has a gun, or fired any.


Well, the Viewsat Weather Forecaster scheme apparently didn't work, so why would this be any different?

And it really doesn't matter about where the server is located, as much as the country of residence of it's owner(s), given that they would be bound by their countries laws.

I think your anaology is flawed, the codes he purchased are illegal, bullets are not :)

Yes it's true, this is not a criminal case, but these civil suits are based on the breaching of a criminal statute. In criminal law it's a crime to "attempt" to commit a crime. This is no different, if it's a crime, it's a crime. However, the penalties (fines or jail time) for "attempt" are limited to 1/2 the maximum penalties for that particular crime. So maybe this is a reasonable defense, even if it fails, it could limit the judgement. However, I still think the defendant is admitting guilt, by even offering that defense.

Like you said though, it's all just speculation.

[1boxman]

There we go again, confusing criminal with civil. Different courts, different standards.



AFA TDG, he was a promoter for Viewsat, and the primary legal thrust against him was for his posting of bins on the various "FTA" forums. IDK if anyone remembers, but DN used forum counters showing the number of downloads of each bin, for their calculation of their "damages". The judgment was over 50 million, BTW. It was at his trial, in fact, that a judge ruled the decryption bins were illegal. Before that, they were never ID'd as such.

Why would they need Wuf to testify, BTW? They already have proof that the codes were purchased, and would also have any email correspondence between his buyers and himself. I don't see where any testimony from him could further harm the defendants, by aiding DN.

Yes remember how they convicted him on posts and counts . There where so many skokes for the vs gang other than JJ but that is another story ..not to get off topic here :tehe:

[1boxman]

The one with the weather was debunked in court with an expert testifying. I have to look it up as don't remember exactly but something to do with how it worked or that it didn't work or couldn't work.




GS2
MM...didn't see where they associated the wf (weather forecast ) with the last bit of veiwsat or stopped the sale ...I know the ihub did with sonicview .

[hondoharry]

The weather map actually worked on the Nfusion. Didn't seem to help Ramkissmyass from getting busted and going to jail in Toronto though.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

MM...didn't see where they associated the wf (weather forecast ) with the last bit of veiwsat or stopped the sale ...I know the ihub did with sonicview .


The one I read was with Sonicview. Don't know if it was brought up in court with others.



GS2

[DualTest]

The weather map actually worked on the Nfusion. Didn't seem to help Ramkissmyass from getting busted and going to jail in Toronto though.

The was for destroy evidence, if I remember correctly. Destroying the iks server it was believed.

[JCO]

The was for destroy evidence, if I remember correctly. Destroying the iks server it was believed.

Loosing his laptop and not handing over his hard drives from the fixed PC's as well.

[hondoharry]

Loosing his laptop and not handing over his hard drives from the fixed PC's as well.

Imagine that. Superhero going to jail.

[fifties]

Originally Posted by fifties
You have brought up the specter of incriminating posts at "FTA" and IKS server forums, AWA damaging emails or PM's, acknowledging usage, by the defendant.

I can agree that those would most likely seal the deal for DN, W/O the need for ISP logs, showing connection to the server. Now without those items, then I would say the logs would need to be shown, to establish proof that the defendant did in fact, "pull the trigger".
If the find he had or bought a receiver ( leaving out that he said he didn't ) in your opinion would they still need to show logs to establish proof that the defendant did in fact pulled the trigger.
That's a good question, in that purchase of the codes, along with proof that he had the equipment to utilize them, might be enough.

I just can't say. It may depend on the particular judge hearing the case, or there may be something in law to either support or deny the value of that combined evidence.

Logs of course would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not required in the civil court venue.



And your (their) circumstantial evidence is simply and only proof that the defendant bought the code.

Nothing showing that he used it, or even had the equipment necessary to make it work.
No records displaying a discussion of any problems with it, how to set it up, what channels would be available, how long it was good for, what IP to use to connect to.

Your contention is that his purchase displayed an initial intent, and that should be good enough to garner a judgment against him.

Mine is that this isn't a criminal court felony case, where mere intent might be enough, but a relatively low level civil action, where just a little more would need to be proven by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff; he bought the code
Defendant; I never used it
50/50 so far.
The plaintiff would need to push it over the edge, even ever so slightly, with another tidbit of evidence.
We don't know what circumstantial evidence they have or could get along the way. Yes I believe buying a subscription to codes that have only one purpose shows intent. I believe the codes would fall under the description below from the DMCA. I believe buying the codes is more damaging than buying an unlooper.
GS2
I would agree that ownership of the codes is more damaging than buying actual hardware that could be used for something else, and in this regard, we can't really compare the DN litigation to what Dave's complaints were.
I would also agree that their purchase does show intent, no question, and their existence could be construed as a violation of the DMCA.
With all that said, I think a good defense hinges on the defendant casting a doubt as to whether he actually used the codes or not. W/O the plaintiff showing proof of ownership of a receiver, this would seem to be a definite defensive advantage.

As you have posted previously, the plaintiff's attorney will depose him, and may be able to trip him up when taking the deposition, unless he pays his own lawyer to be there, running up the $.

[zero]

12345678910

[ftaalltheway]

This is a court case against a end user by the name of KAILAS MAGI. Not wuffman.
It clearly states that the said defendant purchased codes from wuff in page one.
Guess Nagra are going after those that are ignoring their letters after all.

couldnt dixon also be considered an enduser??
sure he sold dons (reseller) but 99% certainty HE connected to
various p$s too imho
so why arent we seeing info on HIS accountability and accused by
nag/dn via same letters magi and others got under HIS acct
?? unless of course he WAS
served and payed up but THAT would have to be a mutually agreed
amount (settlement) since HIS would be in the thousands, right?? curious

[fifties]

couldnt dixon also be considered an enduser??
sure he sold dons (reseller) but 99% certainty HE connected to
various p$s too imho
so why arent we seeing info on HIS accountability and accused by
nag/dn via same letters magi and others got under HIS acct
?? unless of course he WAS
served and payed up but THAT would have to be a mutually agreed
amount (settlement) since HIS would be in the thousands, right?? curious
Now you aren't suggesting that he cooperated with DN and gave up his customer records in exchange for not being prosecuted by them as an end-user himself, are you? Nawww.....:rolleyes:

[sodusme]

I didn't read through this whole thing but my contention still is prove it.

The codes themselves mean nothing. You need a receiver, a dongle, a dish, and an internet connection to be able to steal television with these codes. Without each and every one of those variables in place there is no way DN/Nagra can proof theft. Unless the judges are now ruling on 'intent' which would be B.S. if that is the case. Of course lots of court cases are ruled on 'intent' that really shouldn't be. Like the buying of 'drugs' that are not drugs from an undercover agent. Or the soliciting of a 'prostitute' that isn't really a prostitute but is an undercover agent. Or the guy who goes to meet an 'underage' girl from the 'net and instead she is an undercover agent. Too many crimes in this country are being decided on 'intent'. Then when you get in front of the judge they present it as "You attempted to buy drugs from an undercover agent". No you didn't 'cause there were never any real drugs in play. Or "You attempted to solicit a prostitute". No you didn't 'cause there was never any real prostitute in play only an undercover agent. Or "You attempted to meet a 13 yo girl you met online". No you didn't cause again there was never really a 13 yo girl in play it was only an undercover agent the whole time.

Pretty soon anything you do will be critiqued as 'intent'.

[fifties]

Sod old boy, all of your examples are criminal court fodder. I don't think the same standards would be held to in civil...

[sodusme]

Sod old boy, all of your examples are criminal court fodder. I don't think the same standards would be held to in civil...

Just an example fifties, just an example.

Evidently you don't need real strong 'evidence' as they don't have real strong evidence. I know that in a civil case you have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence or in other words 51% to 49%. But yeah I was simply comparing that they (meaning DN/Nagra) are going on 'intent' because they have no ironclad evidence that theft actually occurred. So they have to be drawing the conclusion that your 'intent' was to use these codes to steal television since they cannot actually prove that you stole it. They can only surmise by the meager evidence they have compiled.

[JCO]

Are you guys saying that the glove may not fit..LOL


Sod old boy, all of your examples are criminal court fodder. I don't think the same standards would be held to in civil...


Just an example fifties, just an example.

Evidently you don't need real strong 'evidence' as they don't have real strong evidence. I know that in a civil case you have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence or in other words 51% to 49%. But yeah I was simply comparing that they (meaning DN/Nagra) are going on 'intent' because they have no ironclad evidence that theft actually occurred. So they have to be drawing the conclusion that your 'intent' was to use these codes to steal television since they cannot actually prove that you stole it. They can only surmise by the meager evidence they have compiled.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I didn't read through this whole thing but my contention still is prove it.

The codes themselves mean nothing. You need a receiver, a dongle, a dish, and an internet connection to be able to steal television with these codes. Without each and every one of those variables in place there is no way DN/Nagra can proof theft. Unless the judges are now ruling on 'intent' which would be B.S. if that is the case. Of course lots of court cases are ruled on 'intent' that really shouldn't be. Like the buying of 'drugs' that are not drugs from an undercover agent. Or the soliciting of a 'prostitute' that isn't really a prostitute but is an undercover agent. Or the guy who goes to meet an 'underage' girl from the 'net and instead she is an undercover agent. Too many crimes in this country are being decided on 'intent'. Then when you get in front of the judge they present it as "You attempted to buy drugs from an undercover agent". No you didn't 'cause there were never any real drugs in play. Or "You attempted to solicit a prostitute". No you didn't 'cause there was never any real prostitute in play only an undercover agent. Or "You attempted to meet a 13 yo girl you met online". No you didn't cause again there was never really a 13 yo girl in play it was only an undercover agent the whole time.

Pretty soon anything you do will be critiqued as 'intent'.


I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.



GS2

[JCO]

I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.



GS2

We all know women always lie about their age.. She was 30 but said she was 13...LOL

[sodusme]

I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.



GS2

Unless of course you had changed your mind upon meeting the 'girl'.

So let me ask you if someone thought of meeting a 13 yo girl on the 'net then that is a crime then I assume? Forget that they may or may not have acted on it but lets just say it crossed their mind so they should be convicted then if their 'intent' was to meet a 13 yo? My contention is if the actual crime (the meeting of a real, live, honest to goodness 13 yo with the intent of having sex) never manifested....then where is the crime? The same holds true here....where is the actual crime? Show me proof of the crime and not just some codes, emails, paypal records. Now please don't read into this and think I am supporting this type of behavior I'm merely using it as an example. The same would apply if you meet an undercover agent to buy drugs and there are no real, live, honest to goodness drugs in the equation....then where is the crime?

At any case it was just an example of how many, many crimes in this country are now decided on 'intent' and wrongfully so IMO. These court cases of copyright infringement are no different. At this point they can only go on what they thought you were going to do with these codes as they have no proof you actually used them.

[Ineedanewusersname]

But I am dyslexic. I thought she was 31.



I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.



GS2

[dishuser]

bla bla bla
if you don't think you're screwed you're an idiot
enjoy spending 5 k to fight less...duh

[alex70olds]

bla bla bla
if you don't think you're screwed you're an idiot
enjoy spending 5 k to fight less...duh

LMAO Me thinks a certain service/site are getting smacked pretty hard right now. Courts, ECM's like they know all their subs, etc.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Meeting a 13 old by itself is not a crime but under your description of meeting a 13 year old and it turned out to be an under cover would make one think there was some not very good intent going on....

[sodusme]

Yes that is all I'm trying to make a point on. <br />
<br />
Its getting where true 'justice' doesn't exist anymore in this country. It boils down to which attorney(s) can lie the best. There is no sense of...

[alex70olds]

Take a look at this motion, and the response to it. The motion to dismiss brings a lot of points made here in this thread. The case was voluntarily dismissed, so a ruling on the dismissal was never made.

17950
17951
17952

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Sometimes they have a complaint against someone and need more evidence. Using under cover in that situation is fighting crime in America. Sometimes its abused and defendant's lawyer will try to have...

[sodusme]

Nice maybe some attorney is finally reading what we have been saying here. <br />
<br />
This guy makes some valid points. The best one I think is that DN/Echostar aren't even authorized on behalf of Nagra to...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Take a look at this motion, and the response to it. The motion to dismiss brings a lot of points made here in this thread. The case was voluntarily dismissed, so a ruling on the dismissal was never made.

17950
17951
17952



Now we can only speculate as to which way it would have gone because of the settlement. Without having any knowledge of the details of settlement that makes it hard to determine which party moved more for a settlement and wanted to stop the proceedings from progressing to rulings on the motion to dismiss.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Personally think that was the weakest argument brought forth to dismiss that they do not qualify under the DMCA to sue. We will never know but only in opinion I would see that going in plaintiff's...

[alex70olds]

Notice where one thing cited in the motion was claiming the plaintiffs submitted a "Shotgun" pleading. I stumbled across another DA case in Florida Fed court where the judge ruled it was indeed a "shotgun" pleading.

17954

[garysam]

bla bla bla
if you don't think you're screwed you're an idiot
enjoy spending 5 k to fight less...duh

I never took you for a poet...nice! BTW, you remind me of another guy that was on a number of forums for years. He called himself "Rotten". Any relation? I kinda miss that little prick.

[Le_Gnome]

I never took you for a poet...nice! BTW, you remind me of another guy that was on a number of forums for years. He called himself "Rotten". Any relation? I kinda miss that little prick.
Nice first post! Welcome to Satfix whoever you are!

[sodusme]

So what exactly got 'dismissed'? The case against him got dismissed totally....or the 'motion for dismissal' got dismissed. LOL

I have trouble understanding all this legal mumbo jumbo.

[fifties]

I have trouble understanding all this legal mumbo jumbo.
And here I thought you were our resident legal council;

boy are we in trouble!

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Notice where one thing cited in the motion was claiming the plaintiffs submitted a "Shotgun" pleading. I stumbled across another DA case in Florida Fed court where the judge ruled it was indeed a "shotgun" pleading.

17954


The problem there is the court ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. They did. Eventually the defendant agreed to a Judgement of $10,000 and agreed to a permanent injunction.


It would be interesting to see the difference between the first complaint that was thrown out to the amended complaint that was not thrown out.





GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

So what exactly got 'dismissed'? The case against him got dismissed totally....or the 'motion for dismissal' got dismissed. LOL

I have trouble understanding all this legal mumbo jumbo.



They filled a complaint. Defense made a motion to dismiss the complaint due to finding it was a shotgun pleading. The court agreed with the motion and ordered the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. They did that was not considered a shotgun pleading. The defendant eventually lost.




In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. No. 1), filed on August 17, 2011, is STRICKEN.
2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order
on or before September 6, 2011. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action.




GS2

[sodusme]

And here I thought you were our resident legal council;

boy are we in trouble!

I'm actually the resident anonymity and networking guy. That is where my expertise lies. ;)

[alex70olds]

United States IKS End User Civil Cases and Status

Dark Angel Endusers US Cases.

DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. WILLIAMS Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Steele Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to Seize Vehicles
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Powell Default Judgment $10,000.00
NagraStar LLC et al v. Harrell Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Saunder Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Wineteer Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dubar Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hardison Summary Judgement $10,000 Plus $20,315 costs.
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Lohnes Dismissed With Out Prejudice
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Everette Default Judgment $10,000.00
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. ROUNDS Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. SWEETING Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Jeffrey Parsons Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Daniel Arriola Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1,200 Costs.
DISH Network LLC et al v. Goncalves Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. THOMAS Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L C. et al v. Khan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried File Bankruptcy,court hit him another $6,051 in costs.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Harris Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Henry Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Layer Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Dummer Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Fowler Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Karapet Menemshyan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1200 in Costs.
Dish Network LLC et al v. Ken Moorhead Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Santa Monica Systems Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Arafat Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. James Terrazas Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Lopez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rhoades Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Frederick Dismissed With Out Prejudice
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Pruneda Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Sanchez Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. John Mitchell Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Main Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Vasquez Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK LLC et al v. PIPPIN Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to collect.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dames Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Forbes Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Goss Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Vega Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rana Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Mondry Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Diallo Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Alafa Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Berger Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Tackie Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Friedman Default Judgment $10,000.00
Network LLC et al v. Scott Default Judgment after fighting for a while. $10,000 + $15,000 Costs
Dish Network LLC et al v. Smith Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Moran Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Suarez Default Judgment $0 Judge Crossed out Damages, considered injunction adequate.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Ventura Voluntary Dismissal
Dish Network LLC v. DelVecchio Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried to seize property
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Lucas Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Norris Default Judgment Judge adjusted to $1500.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hamilton Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Schaefer Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perry (Contested) Summary Judgment 10K + 15K Costs and attorney fees.
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Borden Settled Confidential Amount Claimed 5th
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Nguyen Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Ashworth Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Wiley Motion for Default Judgment filed 2-4-2013, not granted yet.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Martin Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. JONES Default Judgment $10,000.00 PI Denied.
EchoStar Technologies LLC et al v. Kimbrough Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Venning Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dalmer Default Judgment $10,000.00

Wufman End user cases

DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Magi Fighting, Scheduling Conference Report Due By 4-29-2013.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Keown Clerks Entry of Default
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. FAROOQUI Clerks Entry of Default
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Haubner Hiding From Being Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Harrison Summons Issued, Nothing Since 1-30-2013
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Gonzalez Clerks Entry of Default
DISH Network LLC et al v. Aurora Herrera Summons Issued 1-29-2012
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Yelverton Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Williamson Answered Complaint 2-29-2012

[smallyjohnson]

I never took you for a poet...nice! BTW, you remind me of another guy that was on a number of forums for years. He called himself "Rotten". Any relation? I kinda miss that little prick.YIKES! first post calling out muff? not a good idea

[ftaalltheway]

Just an example fifties, just an example.

Evidently you don't need real strong 'evidence' as they don't have real strong evidence. I know that in a civil case you have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence or in other words 51% to 49%. But yeah I was simply comparing that they (meaning DN/Nagra) are going on 'intent' because they have no ironclad evidence that theft actually occurred. So they have to be drawing the conclusion that your 'intent' was to use these codes to steal television since they cannot actually prove that you stole it. They can only surmise by the meager evidence they have compiled.

an "intent" usually includes other "relevent" evidence,,,say one is caught
with 3 lbs of weed, even in your premises, it is obvious "that" amount
is NOT for personal use,,,the prosecutor will obviously contend you had
intended to sell it, one day...just one example

in my view, and agree with most of what you posted about these letetrs
and claim by plaintifs, there should be more than "intent" in THESE cases

it does appear, to me as well, that the courts are favoring all claims in
plaintifs' favour only b/c not many will file a response, thinking they are
dead in the water, a water filled with mud,,,seams that just b/c their lawers
are officials of the court that they are deemed to be filing legit claims,,,
fact is, any claim in civil, are just as contentious as the next,,,if a defendant
doesnt see the smallest detail that can be argued to be frivilous, he/she
will lose ,,it takes good detailed people to weed out the frivilous aspect(s) of a claim

such as is the case in these claims,,,i said it be4,,,if they have NOTHING else than "intent, in THESE cases?
and prevail? then not only is there something VERY wrong with the system BUT one can
bet their bottomn dollars, judges can be bought

Happy Easter!

[sodusme]

an "intent" usually includes other "relevent" evidence,,,say one is caught
with 3 lbs of weed, even in your premises, it is obvious "that" amount
is NOT for personal use,,,the prosecutor will obviously contend you had
intended to sell it, one day...just one example

in my view, and agree with most of what you posted about these letetrs
and claim by plaintifs, there should be more than "intent" in THESE cases

it does appear, to me as well, that the courts are favoring all claims in
plaintifs' favour only b/c not many will file a response, thinking they are
dead in the water, a water filled with mud,,,seams that just b/c their lawers
are officials of the court that they are deemed to be filing legit claims,,,
fact is, any claim in civil, are just as contentious as the next,,,if a defendant
doesnt see the smallest detail that can be argued to be frivilous, he/she
will lose ,,it takes good detailed people to weed out the frivilous aspect(s) of a claim

such as is the case in these claims,,,i said it be4,,,if they have NOTHING else than "intent, in THESE cases?
and prevail? then not only is there something VERY wrong with the system BUT one can
bet their bottomn dollars, judges can be bought

Happy Easter!

Very true....the only thing I would argue is the very possession of 'weed' is illegal in of itself. Which constitutes a crime whether its for personal use or selling.

These codes like I have said before are simply codes. The codes mean nothing and of themselves are not illegal to posses. Until which time that changes I still say DN/Nagra has no case or at least they shouldn't have a case. They are a bull in a china shop when it comes to these cases and prey on the fact that the 'little' guy won't fight back.

Its a far stretch from buying some codes to pirating television on a Saturday night with a big bowl of popcorn in front of you in a home in suburbia U.S.A. They can say all they want about "Your intent was to do this" or "Your intent was to do that"....but in the long run they have nothing.

In fact my line of questioning would go something like this....I would pick out a large television event that transpired during the time frame that the piracy was alleged to have taken place. Maybe a UFC event. I would ask Hagan, Noll and Boyle if it was possible that John Doe was able to watch this UFC match provided the technology from this IKS setup? When they said YES which they naturally would. I would then ask them "Ok so you have irrefutable evidence that John Doe did in fact watch this UFC match on the date of XYZ correct"? Of course they would have none and that would be the end of that line of questioning.

[oz2804]

YIKES! first post calling out muff? not a good ideaya shouldnt be scared of internet tough guys no matter of amount of posts on either side!muffin lmao!

[JCO]

Very true....the only thing I would argue is the very possession of 'weed' is illegal in of itself. Which constitutes a crime whether its for personal use or selling.

These codes like I have said before are simply codes. The codes mean nothing and of themselves are not illegal to posses. Until which time that changes I still say DN/Nagra has no case or at least they shouldn't have a case. They are a bull in a china shop when it comes to these cases and prey on the fact that the 'little' guy won't fight back.

Its a far stretch from buying some codes to pirating television on a Saturday night with a big bowl of popcorn in front of you in a home in suburbia U.S.A. They can say all they want about "Your intent was to do this" or "Your intent was to do that"....but in the long run they have nothing.

In fact my line of questioning would go something like this....I would pick out a large television event that transpired during the time frame that the piracy was alleged to have taken place. Maybe a UFC event. I would ask Hagan, Noll and Boyle if it was possible that John Doe was able to watch this UFC match provided the technology from this IKS setup? When they said YES which they naturally would. I would then ask them "Ok so you have irrefutable evidence that John Doe did in fact watch this UFC match on the date of XYZ correct"? Of course they would have none and that would be the end of that line of questioning.

Medicinal weed is not illegal in certain states.. MAybe there is a need for medicinal codes..ROFLMAO

[dishuser]

Medicinal weed is not illegal in certain states.. MAybe there is a need for medicinal codes..ROFLMAO
legal in canada too...check it out

[JCO]

legal in canada too...check it out

CAnada is way more advanced than the states. LOL

[Hannibalector]

Take a look at this motion, and the response to it. The motion to dismiss brings a lot of points made here in this thread. The case was voluntarily dismissed, so a ruling on the dismissal was never made.

17950
17951
17952


(collectively, "DISH Network"), and Defendent Frederick Dames respectfully notify the Court of the parties settement of this action


DISH Network voluntarily dismisses this action against the Defendent

the one word in this that is surprising is "settlement" and what can or can't be inferred by it

[sharkar]

I am confused, who can explain why?

[abouttosnap]

I am confused, who can explain why?

Well you could be like me and not be wrapped real tight in general and have issues. Seems I hit my head a few times as a child and I'm sure that didn't help much. lol Of course there is alcohol and or hard drugs that can contribute to one's confusion. Now some of them dag gum big words will tear me out the frame. :confused:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfsUC7ge550

[rainman2]

I just want to know who went to court and how they lost their case.

[iq180]

I just want to know who went to court and how they lost their case.
I don't see anywhere that they lost, in fact it looks more like nagra/dish lost to me,JMO,lol.

[rainman2]

I would still like to hear of anyone meaning a IKS subscriber like let's say you or me or Tom, or Jerry. I would like to know how they defended themselves from the man. I am sure that info would help a lot of people. Can somebody in this forum step up and maybe give us a clue on how you did it. Maybe he, or she will .

[joeblow]

I would still like to hear of anyone meaning a IKS subscriber like let's say you or me or Tom, or Jerry. I would like to know how they defended themselves from the man. I am sure that info would help a lot of people. Can somebody in this forum step up and maybe give us a clue on how you did it. Maybe he, or she will .

anybody who has gone to court most likely has made an agreement that they will not have anything to do with FTA for as long as they live....which would include posting on these forums....

as for people defending themselves....this is how well they did....

here is what happens when you stick your head in the sand and ignore legal documentation.....




United States IKS End User Civil Cases and Status

Dark Angel Endusers US Cases.

DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. WILLIAMS Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Steele Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to Seize Vehicles
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Powell Default Judgment $10,000.00
NagraStar LLC et al v. Harrell Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Saunder Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Wineteer Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dubar Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hardison Summary Judgement $10,000 Plus $20,315 costs.
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Lohnes Dismissed With Out Prejudice
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Everette Default Judgment $10,000.00
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. ROUNDS Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. SWEETING Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Jeffrey Parsons Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Daniel Arriola Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1,200 Costs.
DISH Network LLC et al v. Goncalves Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. THOMAS Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L C. et al v. Khan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried File Bankruptcy,court hit him another $6,051 in costs.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Harris Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Henry Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Layer Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Dummer Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Fowler Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Karapet Menemshyan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1200 in Costs.
Dish Network LLC et al v. Ken Moorhead Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Santa Monica Systems Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Arafat Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. James Terrazas Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Lopez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rhoades Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Frederick Dismissed With Out Prejudice
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Pruneda Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Sanchez Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. John Mitchell Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Main Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Vasquez Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK LLC et al v. PIPPIN Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to collect.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dames Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Forbes Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Goss Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Vega Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rana Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Mondry Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Diallo Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Alafa Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Berger Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Tackie Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Friedman Default Judgment $10,000.00
Network LLC et al v. Scott Default Judgment after fighting for a while. $10,000 + $15,000 Costs
Dish Network LLC et al v. Smith Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Moran Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Suarez Default Judgment $0 Judge Crossed out Damages, considered injunction adequate.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Ventura Voluntary Dismissal
Dish Network LLC v. DelVecchio Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried to seize property
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Lucas Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Norris Default Judgment Judge adjusted to $1500.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hamilton Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Schaefer Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perry (Contested) Summary Judgment 10K + 15K Costs and attorney fees.
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Borden Settled Confidential Amount Claimed 5th
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Nguyen Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Ashworth Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Wiley Motion for Default Judgment filed 2-4-2013, not granted yet.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Martin Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. JONES Default Judgment $10,000.00 PI Denied.
EchoStar Technologies LLC et al v. Kimbrough Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Venning Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dalmer Default Judgment $10,000.00

W*FM*N End user cases

DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Magi Fighting, Scheduling Conference Report Due By 4-29-2013.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Keown Clerks Entry of Default
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. FAROOQUI Clerks Entry of Default
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Haubner Hiding From Being Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Harrison Summons Issued, Nothing Since 1-30-2013
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Gonzalez Clerks Entry of Default
DISH Network LLC et al v. Aurora Herrera Summons Issued 1-29-2012
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Yelverton Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Williamson Answered Complaint 2-29-2012

[rainman2]

I guess a lot are up the creek. Thanks for the info. Better off paying them with their first offer. Sell your equipment to help pay the man. Netflix is starting to look better now. Guess I'll take the wife to a movie now and then.Cheaper.

[sharkar]

Thanks for the list,

Just querious, among those defending themselves, any of them represented by an atterney?

[ftaalltheway]

[QUOTE=joeblow;938361]anybody who has gone to court most likely has made an agreement that they will not have anything to do with FTA for as long as they live....which would include posting on these forums....

as for people defending themselves....this is how well they did....

here is what happens when you stick your head in the sand and ignore legal documentation.....




all i know is, i would find a friend and have them post what i would
say happened throughout the whole process,,,if for no other reason than to
inform the FTA community,,,i figure i owed that much for all the
help i got over the yrs

besides, what are they (dn) gonna do track every website you visit and post at??
just to make sure you dont spill the beans?? LOL i mean come on man,,,
everything said on these forums are , HEARSAY...lol

and,,,as for these calls to negotiate b4 a case hits the courts??im not sure
about that advice,,,that would mean you are allowing THEM to win a case
BUYING A CODE ONLY, without suporting evidence?? i mean geezaloo
IF that was all those dingalings had on your asss?
why in the world would anyone give in with such CRAP??

whats that word im looking for?? ahhh

EXTORTION, letters??

[rainman2]

I do not think it's just about buying the a code what I do not know is can they use the finks pms on us and the response we gave like, thanks works like a charm. Even though you donated through PP and for some reason PP gave up your address so they can find you. How do you defend against that?

[hondoharry]

as for these calls to negotiate b4 a case hits the courts??im not sure
about that advice,,,that would mean you are allowing THEM to win a case
BUYING A CODE ONLY, without suporting evidence?? i mean geezaloo
IF that was all those dingalings had on your asss?
why in the world would anyone give in with such CRAP??

I admire your bravado but the short answer is to spend the least money possible. Isn't that what FTA is all about anyway?

[ftaalltheway]

I admire your bravado but the short answer is to spend the least money possible. Isn't that what FTA is all about anyway?

all i know is,,, that list posted by joeblow (liker that nic) lol
doenst do this topic any justice,,,cuz, to many of us, DA cases had a whole
lot more supporting evidence UNLIKE magi letter and others with buying codes

sure let dn have at it and then millions more letters will follow, is THAT what youd
like to see happen?? cuz that is the trend here with all these panicking
settlements,,,imho

i just think it would be interesting to know how one of these cases went?
what ever happened to free speach,,,arent all cases public knowledge
or is everything NOW settled in deepest secrecy?? why is that what does DN
have to hide??

[joeblow]

and,,,as for these calls to negotiate b4 a case hits the courts??im not sure
about that advice,,,that would mean you are allowing THEM to win a case
BUYING A CODE ONLY, without suporting evidence?? i mean geezaloo
IF that was all those dingalings had on your asss?
why in the world would anyone give in with such CRAP??

whats that word im looking for?? ahhh

EXTORTION, letters??

it is not extortion at all, some people may call it being nice!

they dont HAVE to offer a settlement before they serve you, they could have skipped the settlement letters and served people right away with a notice to appear in court, they are offering people an easy and CHEAP way out!

going to court is a gamble, and in my opinion the odds are not on your side, just look at the list i posted, i dont care what attorney you hire, they are not going to be half as good as the DN/nagra attorneys are, your attorney will look like Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons compared to theirs! LOL!

[joeblow]

I do not think it's just about buying the a code what I do not know is can they use the finks pms on us and the response we gave like, thanks works like a charm. Even though you donated through PP and for some reason PP gave up your address so they can find you. How do you defend against that?

forum posts, PMs, and emails will all be used against you as evidence!

that is why i always say keep your mouth SHUT ON HERE!

people who go around saying things like "great UFC fight last night, thanks NFPS!!" are complete idiots, is that not an admission to guilt or what?

[joeblow]

i just think it would be interesting to know how one of these cases went?


there has only been one W*FM*N case settled and here is how it went.....

DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Yelverton Settled $10,000.00

[alex70olds]

it is not extortion at all, some people may call it being nice!

they dont HAVE to offer a settlement before they serve you, they could have skipped the settlement letters and served people right away with a notice to appear in court, they are offering people an easy and CHEAP way out!

going to court is a gamble, and in my opinion the odds are not on your side, just look at the list i posted, i dont care what attorney you hire, they are not going to be half as good as the DN/nagra attorneys are, your attorney will look like Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons compared to theirs! LOL!

Listen Foker, all you did was c and p my post. I put a lot of hard work, in that list. Do your own work if you are going to take credit for it.

[hondoharry]

I think the point was to see a case that actually went to trial. Obviously folks whose lawyers explained the risks opted for the settlement route since we haven't seen one case with a judgement yet. And they definitely would have spent a lot less money accepting the extortion offer.

[joeblow]

Listen Foker, all you did was c and p my post. I put a lot of hard work, in that list. Do your own work if you are going to take credit for it.


listen here jerk off, i never took credit for anything, i said i posted it, not created it, learn how to read

[alex70olds]

listen here jerk off, i never took credit for anything, i said i posted it, not created it, learn how to read

You are, and always have been an idiot, and know absolutely nothing of which you post. Read that moron!

[joeblow]

You are, and always have been an idiot, and know absolutely nothing of which you post. Read that moron!

translation = yes you were correct joeblow, but i am not man enough to admit it

[dishuser]

translation = yes you were correct joeblow, but i am not man enough to admit it
no you''re wrong b00b...you should've put c/p before that post since that's all you did

[ftaalltheway]

I think the point was to see a case that actually went to trial. Obviously folks whose lawyers explained the risks opted for the settlement route since we haven't seen one case with a judgement yet. And they definitely would have spent a lot less money accepting the extortion offer.

thats my point,,,isnt that what "magi" is doing?? hope HE reports back
just what it is dn had/have on HIS ass other than the "buying code"
crap and elaborate on how it all went in court,,i mean come on man
NOT everyone is sworn to "secrecy" right?

helll if you cant afford to give them one red cent then whats another 10 g notes?
in the grand scheme? they, DN will still get NADDA not directly, or 50% from
any of their collection dept (if they have one),,,all they really would get is SOLD to a 3rd party collection
which will also get NADDA

so to say its BEST to settle at the outset?? works for VERY FEW
in this game,,,if I got such a letter? since i have no interest
in settling (even if i could) i would tell them where to go
cuz no matter what i call them they cant use anything i say against me in court
cuz this is all about $$$ NOT criminal,,,they know theyre idiots anyways and
so are all their trolls

its differnt if we are ONLY talking a few hundred bucks THEN
i might argue they are being fair BUT their claims are so far-fetcched
it makes me sick and chuckle at the same time

and btw- joeblow,,,everything said on this forum AGAIN, is HEAR SAY

what is it about THAT you dont get??? git,,, THE ONLY time anything is used
against you is IF you tie everything up and I MEAN everything,,,otherwise
all those sites they shut down since IKS came into play they would
have nailed many many more thousands,,,cuz lest we forget,,we were all so very laxed
with some of our info in pms and posts and it hasnt been until just recently
we are all really taking extra security measures,,,imo

[hondoharry]

no you''re wrong b00b...you should've put c/p before that post since that's all you did

Not only that, indicate who and where you got it from.

[joeblow]

helll if you cant afford to give them one red cent then whats another 10 g notes?
in the grand scheme? they, DN will still get NADDA not directly, or 50% from
any of their collection dept (if they have one),,,all they really would get is SOLD to a 3rd party collection
which will also get NADDA



dude, you have no clue,

when they get a court judgement against you they will freeze your bank account, take every last penny from it, if that does not cover the amount, they will take your assets, if that doesn't cover the amount, they will take your paychecks directly from your employer, or any other source of income you have (government issued checks) until its paid off....

they WILL GET THEIR MONEY, unless you are somebody who has no assets, no bank account, and no formal/taxable income, who could possibly live the rest of their lives like that? a homeless person i guess,

a judgement like this can, and will, destroy your entire life for many years to come....people may act all tough and care free, before hand, but just wait till that hammer falls, then they turn into crying babies,

[dishuser]

dude, you have no clue,

when they get a court judgement against you they will freeze your bank account, take every last penny from it, if that does not cover the amount, they will take your assets, if that doesn't cover the amount, they will take your paychecks directly from your employer, or any other source of income you have (government issued checks) until its paid off....

they WILL GET THEIR MONEY, unless you are somebody who has no assets, no bank account, and no formal/taxable income, who could possibly live the rest of their lives like that? a homeless person i guess,

a judgement like this can, and will, destroy your entire life for many years to come....people may act all tough and care free, before hand, but just wait till that hammer falls, then they turn into crying babies,
let's see that happen with someone from florida...lol

[ftaalltheway]

dude, you have no clue,

when they get a court judgement against you they will freeze your bank account, take every last penny from it, if that does not cover the amount, they will take your assets, if that doesn't cover the amount, they will take your paychecks directly from your employer, or any other source of income you have (government issued checks) until its paid off....

they WILL GET THEIR MONEY, unless you are somebody who has no assets, no bank account, and no formal/taxable income, who could possibly live the rest of their lives like that? a homeless person i guess,

a judgement like this can, and will, destroy your entire life for many years to come....people may act all tough and care free, before hand, but just wait till that hammer falls, then they turn into crying babies,

it allll depends what exactly they have on a peep

i can have all the evidence i think i need to prove my claim
against a person in civil,,,and it all looks so honky dory in
letters and stuff
UNTIL you discover they are missing a few pieces to PROVE
their claim,,,THATS why a first meeting
B4 going to trial is WHEN you find those details out ALL at
NO EXTRA COST,,,ITS YOUR RIGHT as a defendant

and then
what happens
in THOSE cases where they have diddly,, as one discovers
during THAT fist meeting?? and then goes to trial
and one points out the LACK of evidence that is
suppsoed to tie everything up?

"dismissed"

of course IF you find they have MORE?? nothing stopping you
from settling,,,BUT to suggest you do this right when you get their FIRST
letter?? pffftt

go check the texas court's "federal civil cases" that are dismissed, daily,,,see
if you sing that same tune...lol

[ftaalltheway]

let's see that happen with someone from florida...lol

bump bump

Edit this post was NOT meant for you DU correction follows to joeblows