Just received Demand Letter ......

[soupkitchen]

Hello all, new member from another site that went away(D**P***) and looking for whats the latest when one receives the love letter from our friends in Houston.....
I did just get one and have been searching on what the consensus was on how handle it. My situation is I'm in a state that they haven't taken anyone to court (I don't want to be the first), the PP transaction date is coming up on 3 yrs (statute of limitations?) and I don't believe I made any posts/pm's that are incriminating......
The reseller was N**k*a if that matters. Thanks in advance for any insight.

[soupkitchen]

woo hoo - 100 views and not one reply...am I asking something that's taboo? Not asking for legal advice just opinions on what would you do and don't want to offend anyone. Don't want to give up $3500 too easily but also realize the bigger picture.

[kutter]

woo hoo - 100 views and not one reply...am I asking something that's taboo? Not asking for legal advice just opinions on what would you do and don't want to offend anyone. Don't want to give up $3500 too easily but also realize the bigger picture.

anyone that settled probably wants it to remain private ... and in all probability will not frequent any satellite related sites ... I would venture to guess that the consensus would be that you should seek legal advice ...

I'm sure there have been more than a few cases that were settled before any litigation began, but those settlements will be confidential ... even if a settlement was reached during a trial, it will still be confidential ... so the prospects of getting any inside info are very slim ...

take a quick look at all the cases and how they were settled ... ones that are listed as confidential may be of use to you .... at least it will give you the name of the lawyer that acted on behalf on the defendant ...

[whoknows]

woo hoo - 100 views and not one reply...am I asking something that's taboo? Not asking for legal advice just opinions on what would you do and don't want to offend anyone. Don't want to give up $3500 too easily but also realize the bigger picture.


I stopped and read your post a couple of times but didn't reply or advise because of inexperience on the subject and did not want to give wrong advice.
And as other member mentioned that if someone had got caught, and paid, then hitting an fta site would be the last place you'd want to frequent in hopes of bumping into another person that paid the piper.
All I can do is to wish you well and to get a lawyer.

[hedley]

why not just post the demand letter, just white out the incriminating information, from the testimonials that I have read if they sent you a demand letter then they have you by the short hairs my friend, those that do not settle out of court usually pay the piper $10,000.00 per offense plus court and lawyer fees.

[monchino]

i'm not lawyer but,play safe always subscribe that means you are on his side

[kutter]

there were a few cases that were Dismissed With Out Prejudice

Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Lohnes
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Frederick
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Forbes

then there were several that were Voluntary Dismissal

Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Ventura
DISH Network LLC et al v. Aurora Herrera
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Le
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Cooney
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Chen
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Platt

then there was this one that could prove interesting

Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Suarez - Default Judgment $0 Judge Crossed out Damages, considered injunction adequate.

all of the above were copied from a document that alex posted ...

I'm not sure if any of the cases will be of any value, but they are the only ones that might provide a little insight into how to proceed. If you've decided to pay the demand then I would imagine you wish to keep the legal costs to a minimum so the above cases might not be of any interest to you. Although it might be worth your while to provide that info to your lawyer. He will have a pacer account and should be able to quickly determine if any of it could be applied to your situation.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Hello all, new member from another site that went away(D**P***) and looking for whats the latest when one receives the love letter from our friends in Houston.....
I did just get one and have been searching on what the consensus was on how handle it. My situation is I'm in a state that they haven't taken anyone to court (I don't want to be the first), the PP transaction date is coming up on 3 yrs (statute of limitations?) and I don't believe I made any posts/pm's that are incriminating......
The reseller was N**k*a if that matters. Thanks in advance for any insight.



It appears from Kutter's post that they have taken some to court from your state but no one was hit with a judgment. Some could have settled out of court.


It usually comes to down to rolling the dice or not. Roll meaning to ignore and hope it does not materialized into something worse than had you settled.


There is no correct answer because no one has a crystal ball. Probably the most correct answer is to talk to a lawyer.



GS2

[kutter]

I don't know what State he was from .... the cases I posted were simply ones that didn't end with a default judgment or a settlement :)

[soupkitchen]

I can/will post letter if anyone thinks that it would be of any help or interesting....Thanks for all the reply's..

[kutter]

those are the only cases that I'm aware of that might hold the key to a successful defense ... the rest of them didn't fare too well ... almost every other case ended with a judgment of $10,000 or higher ... I don't know why these ones ended in the manner that they did, but the answer could be in the court documents ...

[piratesrevenge]

I'm no lawyer but have worked on many civil litigation cases as a law clerk for a lawyer. The onus is on them to prove your guilt not you proving your innocence.
You do have a right to know what they are relying on to warrant court action. It's called disclosure.
The first thing any lawyer is going to do in a litigation suit is demand full disclosure. From that disclosure you or your lawyer can determine your course of action.

[kutter]

I'm no lawyer but have worked on many civil litigation cases as a law clerk for a lawyer. The onus is on them to prove your guilt not you proving your innocence.
You do have a right to know what they are relying on to warrant court action. It's called disclosure.
The first thing any lawyer is going to do in a litigation suit is demand full disclosure. From that disclosure you or your lawyer can determine your course of action.

yes but discovery only comes after a suit is filed ... at that point you stand to lose $10,000 if you aren't successful ...

[kutter]

I'm no lawyer but have worked on many civil litigation cases as a law clerk for a lawyer. The onus is on them to prove your guilt not you proving your innocence.
You do have a right to know what they are relying on to warrant court action. It's called disclosure.
The first thing any lawyer is going to do in a litigation suit is demand full disclosure. From that disclosure you or your lawyer can determine your course of action.

That's not quite correct. Civil is based on a preponderance of evidence ... criminal law requires proof ...

[piratesrevenge]

yes but discovery only comes after a suit is filed ... at that point you stand to lose $10,000 if you aren't successful ...

Isn't that what I just said.


Originally Posted by piratesrevenge http://images.satfix.net/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.satfix.net/showthread.php?p=1147368#post1147368) I'm no lawyer but have worked on many civil litigation cases as a law clerk for a lawyer. The onus is on them to prove your guilt not you proving your innocence.
You do have a right to know what they are relying on to warrant court action. It's called disclosure.
The first thing any lawyer is going to do in a litigation suit is demand full disclosure. From that disclosure you or your lawyer can determine your course of action.

[piratesrevenge]

That's not quite correct. Civil is based on a preponderance of evidence ... criminal law requires proof ...

In the US you call it that, in Canada we call it a balance of probabilities (51% or greater) The meaning still remains the same.
Either way the onus is still on the plaintiff to prove to the court that what they claim meets those standards.

In criminal the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt."

[kutter]

Isn't that what I just said.

I guess you did ... but I'm not sure that's all that helpful ... Why force them to file suit and settle after ... instead of $3500 plus legal fees it will turn into $10,000 plus legal fees ...

I was merely pointing out that a few cases didn't end in the normal manner ... and that it might be worth his while to have a lawyer look into them to see if there is anything worth pursuing ...

[kutter]

In the US you call it that, in Canada we call it a balance of probabilities (51% or greater) The meaning still remains the same.
Either way the onus is still on the plaintiff to prove to the court that what they claim meets those standards.

In criminal the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt."

lol ...

let's assume I get served, and I allow it to go to court ... at which point I chose to sit there and not defend myself ... what do you think will happen ?

whether you want to believe it or not, once the complaint has been filed, the onus is on you to respond and to defend yourself ... if you don't you will lose by default ... does that sound like innocent until proven guilty ?

[piratesrevenge]

I guess you did ... but I'm not sure that's all that helpful ... Why force them to file suit and settle after ... instead of $3500 plus legal fees it will turn into $10,000 plus legal fees ...

I was merely pointing out that a few cases didn't end in the normal manner ... and that it might be worth his while to have a lawyer look into them to see if there is anything worth pursuing ...

It's rather simple really

First of all (and any lawyer will tell you this) only a fool will give in to such letter without knowing the facts.

Secondly you don't have to retain a lawyer for full services, you can retain a lawyer to communicate to the plaintiff and the lawyer can request the plaintiff provide partial disclosure PRIOR to any action getting initiated.

While they don't have to provide such, the courts do encourage it.
If an action is ultimately filed the court does consider if the parties conducted themselves in a fair and co-operative manner.
In other words if the plaintiffs refuse the request it can have a detrimental effect on any judgement they could receive.

[surfinisfun]

None of this is really necessary IMHO

Fact is, if you received a letter and you did it, along with leaving a money trail then there really isn't much sense in adding extra cost considering they most likely already have enough to prove its more reasonable than not that you are guilty.

And lets face facts.....the little guys face an uphill battle when it comes to these things.

[piratesrevenge]

lol ...

let's assume I get served, and I allow it to go to court ... at which point I chose to sit there and not defend myself ... what do you think will happen ?

whether you want to believe it or not, once the complaint has been filed, the onus is on you to respond and to defend yourself ... if you don't you will lose by default ... does that sound like innocent until proven guilty ?

You're confusing criminal and civil, "innocent until proven guilty" is criminal and you left out the most important part "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Civil cases are not a question of guilt or innocence, they are a question of liability.

Because both US and Canadian law all derives from British law the procedure is the same. The only differences is in the terminology used (ie: preponderance of the evidence in the US, Canada its balance of probabilities).

Read this for a better understanding of how both systems work.

Canada

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/08.html

US

http://www.uscourts.gov/aboutfederal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases

[piratesrevenge]

None of this is really necessary IMHO

Fact is, if you received a letter and you did it, along with leaving a money trail then there really isn't much sense in adding extra cost considering they most likely already have enough to prove its more reasonable than not that you are guilty.

And lets face facts.....the little guys face an uphill battle when it comes to these things.

You're right and soupkitchen did mention about a paypal transaction as well as statue of limitations. If the transaction is within those limits he's toast.
In Canada it's simple, 2 years is the standard for ANY civil action, the US it will vary depending on the state and what limit they set.

For argument sake he is guilty and the provider is demanding let's say $50g, by using a lawyer instead of just paying the demand, the lawyer can be used to settle at a lower amount to which they may accept.

Is it not better to pay a substantially reduced amount of say 50% compared to the full demand at the lawyers cost of a couple thousand? I'm not saying they would accept the offer but should it go to court then being an offer to settle was presented and refused is beneficial in influencing the courts decision.

[kutter]

You're confusing criminal and civil, "innocent until proven guilty" is criminal and you left out the most important part "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Civil cases are not a question of guilt or innocence, they are a question of liability.

Because both US and Canadian law all derives from British law the procedure is the same. The only differences is in the terminology used (ie: preponderance of the evidence in the US, Canada its balance of probabilities).

Read this for a better understanding of how both systems work.

Canada

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/08.html

US

http://www.uscourts.gov/aboutfederal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases

lol ... then why did you say:

The onus is on them to prove your guilt not you proving your innocence.

that statement is absolutely false regardless... the onus is on you to respond in an appropriate manner and to defend yourself ... you need to show that the complaint is false ... otherwise you will be found liable ...

it's funny how after doing a bit of reading you know enough to use the word liable but your first post, which pertained to a civil suit, you used the word guilt :)

lol ... you twist and dance almost as good as kokes :)

[piratesrevenge]

lol ... then why did you say:
that statement is absolutely false regardless... the onus is on you to respond in an appropriate manner and to defend yourself ... you need to show that the complaint is false ... otherwise you will be found liable ...
it's funny how after doing a bit of reading you know enough to use the word liable but your first post, which pertained to a civil suit, you used the word guilt
lol ... you twist and dance almost as good as kokes

I should ask the same of you. How is it in your second post (#14) directed to me you stated;


That's not quite correct. Civil is based on a preponderance of evidence ... criminal law requires proof ...

And did I not clarify the differences in terminology in post #16?


In the US you call it that, in Canada we call it a balance of probabilities (51% or greater) The meaning still remains the same.
Either way the onus is still on the plaintiff to prove to the court that what they claim meets those standards.

In criminal the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt."

Did you disagree with that? NO.

Then why would you pose the question…


does that sound like innocent until proven guilty ?

Why would you use a term that pertains to a criminal?

Didn't you just say...


That's not quite correct. Civil is based on a preponderance of evidence ... criminal law requires proof ...

So if preponderance means the same as "balance of probabilities" and criminal law requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and this being a discussion about civil litigation, then why did you say...


does that sound like innocent until proven guilty ?


And now you question me on my choice of words when you yourself are equally “twisting” your own words by saying..


otherwise you will be found liable ...

What happened to the “innocent until proven guilty” element?

I don't see any post where you disagreed with...


Civil cases are not a question of guilt or innocence, they are a question of liability.


Sounds rather hypocritical, don’t you think?

[kutter]

I should ask the same of you. How is it in your second post (#14) directed to me you stated;



And did I not clarify the differences in terminology in post #16?



Did you disagree with that? NO.

Then why would you pose the question…



Why would you use a term that pertains to a criminal?

Didn't you just say...



So if preponderance means the same as "balance of probabilities" and criminal law requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and this being a discussion about civil litigation, then why did you say...




And now you question me on my choice of words when you yourself are equally “twisting” your own words by saying..



What happened to the “innocent until proven guilty” element?

I don't see any post where you disagreed with...




Sounds rather hypocritical, don’t you think?

not really, there's no twisting ... I just used whatever words you decided to go with ... they are essentially the same ...

you can argue semantics all you wish, it was you that introduced the idea of guilt and innocence ... I merely responded to it ...

then you claimed that it didn't apply because it was a civil case ... that's where you are spinning ...

I don't care if you want to get into semantics or not ...

all of a sudden you decided it wasn't appropriate to use the word guilt so I followed suit and used the word liable ...

what's so hard to understand about that :)

[ranger]

If they provided you proof that you received something to receive programing from someone and you paid a person for same, you should not dismiss the letter ..... ....best wishes ...

[piratesrevenge]

So let me get this straight then.
First you claim you concurred with what I said.
Then as the discussion became more involved you decided to dispute what I was saying.
Now after being called out on the very accusation you accuse me of, you use the defense of semantics.

I don't think you had any intent of carrying on a valid discussion at all, you're intent was to look superior which is evident in your initial comment (#13) to which I pointed out in (#15).

Funny how you can post a initial comment in a attempt to correct me, yet you conduce with the construct of my comment, only to diverge from it and accuse me of manipulation.

Actions speak louder than words my friend, and you can agree with it or not, but as far as I am concerned you are a hypocrite and I will have nothing more to say on the matter.

[kutter]

So let me get this straight then.
First you claim you concurred with what I said.
Then as the discussion became more involved you decided to dispute what I was saying.
Now after being called out on the very accusation you accuse me of, you use the defense of semantics.

I don't think you had any intent of carrying on a valid discussion at all, you're intent was to look superior which is evident in your initial comment (#13) to which I pointed out in (#15).

Funny how you can post a initial comment in a attempt to correct me, yet you conduce with the construct of my comment, only to diverge from it and accuse me of manipulation.

Actions speak louder than words my friend, and you can agree with it or not, but as far as I am concerned you are a hypocrite and I will have nothing more to say on the matter.


lol ... spin it how you want ...

the fact is, you have to respond to the complaint and you have to defend yourself or you will be found liable or guilty if you prefer ...

the onus is on you to show that the complaint is false ... plain and simple :)

[soupkitchen]

Hey Pirate & kutter, I don't mean to for you guys to argue about this......I apologize. And one page of the letter show the PP transaction but it was for a fee - nothing was discussed for what but they will ASSUME. The transaction date was early May 2012, hoping to find statute of limitations for this.......once again sorry for stirring the pot.....

[Wrench]

Personally I would ignore it.

[freeloader]

c and p

AVE STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR THOSE WHO RECEIVE A LETTER, WHO IS LIKELY TO BE SUED AND WHO PROBABLY WILL NOT. DN WILL NOT FILE A LAWSUIT IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE THEY HAVE IS A CODE PURCHASE REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH DOCUMENTATION THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT PURCHASE. TO DATE THEY HAVE ONLY FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THOSE THAT DO NOT RESPOND TO THE LETTER IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. I HAVE ADDRESSED THAT AND EXPLAINED WHAT THAT EVIDENCE USUALLY IS.

THE FOLLOWING IS A C/P EXCERPT FROM MY POST #333 IN THIS THREAD!

RESPOND TO THE LETTER OR NOT? - OR WHO GETS SUED AND WHO DOESN'T?

YOU ARE PROBABLY SAFE IF YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO THE LETTER IF

THE ONLY EVIDENCE DN HAS AGAINST YOU IS THEY ARE ABLE TO PROVE WITH COPIES OF EMAILS AND PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS THAT YOU PURCHASED AN ACCESS CODE -THEY WILL NOT FILE A LAWSUIT IF THE LETTER IS IGNORED - IN THE PAST THEY HAVE NOT FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WHERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE THEY HAVE IS AN ACCESS CODE PURCHASE.

PROBABLY A LAWSUIT IF YOU FAIL TO RESPOND TO THE LETTER

IN THE PAST THEY HAVE ONLY FILED LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE THAT IGNORED THE LETTER IF THEY HAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ALLEGATIONS BEYOND THE FACT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PURCHASED AN ACCESS CODE. IF DN HAS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEYOND THE ACCESS CODE PURCHASE THEY DO NOT DISCLOSE IT IN THE LETTER (this additional evidence is explained below). THEY WILL FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THOSE THAT IGNORE THE LETTER IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE .

DN only files lawsuits if they have basically a slam dunk case against the defendant. If they file a lawsuit, the defendant has already lost the case and ultimately they will obtain a judgment against the defendant in an amount around $10,000.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO OR NOT DO - HOW SHOULD YOU HANDLE THIS LETTER ?

What is the additional evidence that DN may have against you that they have not disclosed in the Letter which would cause them to file a lawsuit if you fail to respond to the letter?

The most common evidence that DN has used in the past if they file a lawsuit is

SELF INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS.


I WILL EXPLAIN THESE AS IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER TO PAY OR IGNORE THE LETTER.

WHO GETS SUED IF THEY IGNORE THE LETTER

1. IF YOU HAVE VIA PM OR EMAIL WITH YOUR RESELLER INDICATED IN ANYWAY WHATSOEVER THAT YOU HAVE UTILIZED OR ARE ATTEMPTING TO UTILIZE THE ACCESS CODE - IT IS LIKELY THAT DN HAS COPIES OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS AND THOSE STATEMENTS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS CORROBORATING EVIDENCE AND IF THE LETTER IS IGNORED THEY WILL SUE YOU AND THEY WILL WIN. BY UTILIZED OR ATTEMPT TO UTILIZE THE CODE MEANS IF YOU HAVE STATED YOU ARE UP, DOWN, ASKING ABOUT CERTAIN CHANNELS, ASKING FOR HELP TO INSTALL THE CODES OR ANYTHING THAT INDICATES YOU ARE USING OR ATTEMPTING TO USE THE SERVICE YOU NEED TO CONTEMPLATE SETTLING WITH DN AS INDICATED IN THE LETTER BECAUSE THEY WILL SUE YOU IF YOU IGNORE IT.

2. IF YOU HAVE PROVIDED THE RESELLER VIA PM OR EMAIL WITH YOUR SCREEN NAME AND YOU HAVE POSTED IN ANY OF THE FORUMS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS INCLUDED ABOVE, ANYTHING THAT WOULD INDICATE IN YOUR POST THAT YOU ARE USING OR ATTEMPTING TO USE THE CODE BE ASSURED THAT DN HAS COPIES OF THOSE POSTS AND THAT IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ALLEGATIONS AND AGAIN YOU SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONTEMPLATE A SETTLEMENT RATHER THAN WAIT TO BE SUED.

3. IF YOU PURCHASED MORE THAN ONE ACCESS CODE THAN THAT APPARENTLY IS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND TO BEST OF OUR UNDERSTANDING THEY WILL FILE A LAWSUIT IF THE LETTER IS IGNORED. (THIS HAS YET TO BE VERIFIED BUT WE BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE AT THIS TIME).

WHO IS THE PAST DOES NOT GET SUED IF THEY IGNORE THE LETTER

IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT DN HAS AGAINST YOU IS WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE LETTER e.g. COPIES OF THE EMAIL BETWEEN THE RESELLER AND YOU AND COPIES OF THE PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS AND YOU IGNORE THE LETTER, PAST HISTORY INDICATES THAT THEY WILL NOT FILE A LAWSUIT.

IF YOU HAVE POSTED IN THE FORUMS POSTS THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT YOU ARE OR ATTEMPTING TO USE THE CODE BUT YOU HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED YOUR SCREEN NAME TO ANYONE THEN IT IS UNLIKELY THAT YOU HAVE COMPROMISED YOURSELF AND DN IS UNLIKELY TO BE ABLE TO RELATE THOSE POSTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE LETTER WHO PURCHASED THE CODE.

IF YOU DECIDE TO IGNORE THE LETTER BE POSITIVE THAT YOU NEVER DISCLOSED YOUR SCREEN NAME TO ANYONE AND IF YOU DID, YOU NEVER POSTED IN THE FORUMS ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED IN ANYWAY WHATSOEVER THAT YOU WERE UTILIZING YOUR ACCESS CODE OR EVEN ATTEMPTING TO UTILIZE THE CODES. BE POSITIVE THAT YOU NEVER COMMUNICATED ANYTHING TO THE RESELLER INDICATING USE.


end of c/p from post #333


if you read paragraph 2 above under Self Incriminating Statements you will see that I have indeed stated that forum posts at this site can and have been used against end users.

EHG
Not my Work got this from another site C+P

[piratesrevenge]

Hey Pirate & kutter, I don't mean to for you guys to argue about this......I apologize. And one page of the letter show the PP transaction but it was for a fee - nothing was discussed for what but they will ASSUME. The transaction date was early May 2012, hoping to find statute of limitations for this.......once again sorry for stirring the pot.....

I'm not 100% on this
For the State of Texas
"§ 16.006. CARRIERS OF PROPERTY" and you can read more about it here;

http://law.justia.com/codes/texas/2005/cp/002.00.000016.00.html

For North Carolina you can read more here:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_1/Article_5.pdf
Look at 1-52 (4)

If these are not applicable to you then do a Google search with the following parameters;
<insert your state name>statute of limitations for civil suits. Then look for a paragraph or heading similar to the above statutes.

Comparing Texas and North Carolina it appears to indicate a common time frame of 3 years.

Hope this helps.

[kutter]

I think you need to look at Copyright law ... it's Federal and any civil action will be filed in a Federal Court.


Chapter 5: Copyright Infringement and Remedies
...
§ 507. Limitations on actions7

(a) Criminal Proceedings. — Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

(b) Civil Actions. — No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

[soupkitchen]

Kutter, Since this/these are a Civil suit than my take is 3yrs for SOL. Correct if I'm wrong. Thanks..

[kutter]

Kutter, Since this/these are a Civil suit than my take is 3yrs for SOL. Correct if I'm wrong. Thanks..

yes that's correct ...

[alex70olds]

It's rather simple really

First of all (and any lawyer will tell you this) only a fool will give in to such letter without knowing the facts.

Secondly you don't have to retain a lawyer for full services, you can retain a lawyer to communicate to the plaintiff and the lawyer can request the plaintiff provide partial disclosure PRIOR to any action getting initiated.

While they don't have to provide such, the courts do encourage it.
If an action is ultimately filed the court does consider if the parties conducted themselves in a fair and co-operative manner.
In other words if the plaintiffs refuse the request it can have a detrimental effect on any judgement they could receive.

You don't need a lawyer. HNB will provide the end user with most of what they have. You just have to ask them.


Hey Pirate & kutter, I don't mean to for you guys to argue about this......I apologize. And one page of the letter show the PP transaction but it was for a fee - nothing was discussed for what but they will ASSUME. The transaction date was early May 2012, hoping to find statute of limitations for this.......once again sorry for stirring the pot.....


Kutter, Since this/these are a Civil suit than my take is 3yrs for SOL. Correct if I'm wrong. Thanks..

The problem is the law states 3 years from when the Plaintiff becomes aware of the infraction. Nokia turned over his records on or about 26 Nov. 2014.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

IN THE PAST THEY HAVE ONLY FILED LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE THAT IGNORED THE LETTER IF THEY HAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ALLEGATIONS BEYOND THE FACT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PURCHASED AN ACCESS CODE. IF DN HAS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEYOND THE ACCESS CODE PURCHASE THEY DO NOT DISCLOSE IT IN THE LETTER (this additional evidence is explained below). THEY WILL FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THOSE THAT IGNORE THE LETTER IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

DN only files lawsuits if they have basically a slam dunk case against the defendant. If they file a lawsuit, the defendant has already lost the case and ultimately they will obtain a judgment against the defendant in an amount around $10,000.


The above seems like speculation to me. How does one determine that previous lawsuits were only filled if they had additional evidence. ? What case(s) would you look at that demonstrate that ?




GS2

[alex70olds]

The above seems like speculation to me. How does one determine that previous lawsuits were only filled if they had additional evidence. ? What case(s) would you look at that demonstrate that ?




GS2

Yeah, and you really can't say they have "slam dunk" evidence 100% of the time. There are now 203 Cases and 18 that were voluntarily dismissed.

[kutter]

You don't need a lawyer. HNB will provide the end user with most of what they have. You just have to ask them.





The problem is the law states 3 years from when the Plaintiff becomes aware of the infraction. Nokia turned over his records on or about 26 Nov. 2014.

Personally, I would seek legal advice and the only way I would consider communicating with HNB would be through a lawyer :)

[kutter]

Yeah, and you really can't say they have "slam dunk" evidence 100% of the time. There are now 203 Cases and 18 that were voluntarily dismissed.

It would be interesting to know why they withdrew .... any more info on those cases ? :)

[alex70olds]

It would be interesting to know why they withdrew .... any more info on those cases ? :)

Not on all of them. Some where because defendant could not be found, at least one where they confused the father with the son, but others that I can't tell why they dismissed.

Oh I don't mean to give advice, I am not qualified to do so. I am just saying there are alternatives.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

It's rather simple really

First of all (and any lawyer will tell you this) only a fool will give in to such letter without knowing the facts.

Secondly you don't have to retain a lawyer for full services, you can retain a lawyer to communicate to the plaintiff and the lawyer can request the plaintiff provide partial disclosure PRIOR to any action getting initiated.

While they don't have to provide such, the courts do encourage it.
If an action is ultimately filed the court does consider if the parties conducted themselves in a fair and co-operative manner.
In other words if the plaintiffs refuse the request it can have a detrimental effect on any judgement they could receive.


Not sure why any plaintiff would supply anything additional to their demand letter or supply anything additional to a complaint filled. Seems rather counter productive to supply more than the demand letter. As a past and current plaintiff I would never disclose anymore to some request. Why would I want to help my defendant. Its simple comply with my demand letter or I will take legal action against you.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

You're right and soupkitchen did mention about a paypal transaction as well as statue of limitations. If the transaction is within those limits he's toast.
In Canada it's simple, 2 years is the standard for ANY civil action, the US it will vary depending on the state and what limit they set.

For argument sake he is guilty and the provider is demanding let's say $50g, by using a lawyer instead of just paying the demand, the lawyer can be used to settle at a lower amount to which they may accept.

Is it not better to pay a substantially reduced amount of say 50% compared to the full demand at the lawyers cost of a couple thousand? I'm not saying they would accept the offer but should it go to court then being an offer to settle was presented and refused is beneficial in influencing the courts decision.


A lawsuit filled under the Canadian Radio Communication Act which covers 90% + Sat cases in three years.



GS2

[alex70olds]

Not sure why any plaintiff would supply anything additional to their demand letter or supply anything additional to a complaint filled. Seems rather counter productive to supply more than the demand letter. As a past and current plaintiff I would never disclose anymore to some request. Why would I want to help my defendant. Its simple comply with my demand letter or I will take legal action against you.



GS2

Because it is much easier, quicker for plaintiffs to collect? I just know they have in the past. I am not speculating, just commenting on what they have down before. Guess it beats hiring local council to file, going through pro hac vice motions etc.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Because it is much easier, quicker for plaintiffs to collect? I just know they have in the past. I am not speculating, just commenting on what they have down before. Guess it beats hiring local council to file, going through pro hac vice motions etc.


Guess it depends on the case & circumstances and would it help. In my own plaintiff cases never got such a request from the defendants but they knew or ought to have known what I had for evidence.


I did blindside one defendant with some evidence I obtained but just obtained before trial and in no way was I going to let that out but maybe at the very beginning of a case like some end user lawsuits where the parties don't really know each other sharing could work to each other's benefit.



GS2

[alex70olds]

Guess it depends on the case & circumstances and would it help. In my own plaintiff cases never got such a request from the defendants but they knew or ought to have known what I had for evidence.


I did blindside one defendant with some evidence I obtained but just obtained before trial and in no way was I going to let that out but maybe at the very beginning of a case like some end user lawsuits where the parties don't really know each other sharing could work to each other's benefit.



GS2

I have never been in a case where both parties were not aware of what the other side had. But apples and oranges to these cases.

[kutter]

Not on all of them. Some where because defendant could not be found, at least one where they confused the father with the son, but others that I can't tell why they dismissed.

Oh I don't mean to give advice, I am not qualified to do so. I am just saying there are alternatives.

lol ... I was just wondering if there was anything in the court documents that didn't seem normal ... how it was dismissed should be public knowledge ... but since I don't have a pacer account I don't have access to that info :)

voluntary dismissal is always "without prejudice" unless otherwise stated ... so I'm not too sure that the cases are actually over ...

[alex70olds]

lol ... I was just wondering if there was anything in the court documents that didn't seem normal ... how it was dismissed should be public knowledge ... but since I don't have a pacer account I don't have access to that info :)

voluntary dismissal is always "without prejudice" unless otherwise stated ... so I'm not too sure that the cases are actually over ...

Actually some specifically state "with prejudice". I think I stated that in the end user file, not sure though. But yeah, I just wanted to implicitly state I am not giving advice, don't need to end up in a case myself lol. :)

[soupkitchen]

Guy's (gals?), I'm going to assess my situation over the weekend to decide whether to fish or cut bait.......have some digging to do into old/deleted emails etc. to see if I may be in deep kim chee. Thanks for all the info and opinions given, hope this will help others that may receive a love letter(so to speak).

[freeloader]

Good luck wish the best.

[havenlyskyhigh]

I don't know how the court open the case only a couple sheet papers or just a couple lines of sentence of the sale
do the court accept open case with just pp phone active or donation.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I don't know how the court open the case only a couple sheet papers or just a couple lines of sentence of the sale
do the court accept open case with just pp phone active or donation.



As a plaintiff you have to pay a court fee and file a complaint to open up a Civil court case. A court does not review the merits of a complaint when its filled. The defendant would need to challenge that with some motion to dismiss based on what in this situation I would not know.




GS2

[ChillyWilly]

I have always been of the opinion that DN has an open offer to attorneys wishing to litigate these case; Sue on our behalf and keep 100% of the proceeds. This always made sense to me because it protects DN from paying runaway hourly fees, while "drawing blood" from the offenders.

I researched a number of cases a couple years ago. I noticed most cases were from states with plaintiff friendly asset seizure laws. And the defendants appeared to be affluent. But JMO..... However folks would be wise to research their state laws and see if a judgement against them can be used to seize bank accounts or lien property......

Good luck to all

[soupkitchen]

After researching and thinking long and hard, I'm going to put HNB on ignore........ I am going to call their bluff so to speak and see how far they are going to go with this. Buying a "code" isn't illegal and will like to see them prove I used it. Will let you all know if and when a 2nd letter arrives. Anyone who hasn't received a first letter should be wary and not sign for a registered letter. They will pursue you if they have an address and have more evidence such as PM stating your up and running, etc. I highly doubt they have asked for any data logs from your/any ISP's to track you. Rollin' the dice......

[dishuser]

After researching and thinking long and hard, I'm going to put HNB on ignore........ I am going to call their bluff so to speak and see how far they are going to go with this. Buying a "code" isn't illegal and will like to see them prove I used it. Will let you all know if and when a 2nd letter arrives. Anyone who hasn't received a first letter should be wary and not sign for a registered letter. They will pursue you if they have an address and have more evidence such as PM stating your up and running, etc. I highly doubt they have asked for any data logs from your/any ISP's to track you. Rollin' the dice......lmfao...good luck with your theory
say goodbye to 10k

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

After researching and thinking long and hard, I'm going to put HNB on ignore........ I am going to call their bluff so to speak and see how far they are going to go with this. Buying a "code" isn't illegal and will like to see them prove I used it. Will let you all know if and when a 2nd letter arrives. Anyone who hasn't received a first letter should be wary and not sign for a registered letter. They will pursue you if they have an address and have more evidence such as PM stating your up and running, etc. I highly doubt they have asked for any data logs from your/any ISP's to track you. Rollin' the dice......



Remember this is a Civil case where plaintiffs say your liable as they allege you purchase this code that only has one purpose which is to circumvent their encryption and avoid making a lawful payment to them.


Personally I don't think they need to prove you used it and the onus will be on you to explain why you paid for the unlawful service.


Its like saying I paid for DN but never watched anything. Do you think reasonably its more likely that if you paid for a service that you used it or intended to versus not.



Wish you don't receive a second notice or lawsuit wherever may come because don't know if they send second letters.



GS2

[jazzman]

After researching and thinking long and hard, I'm going to put HNB on ignore........ I am going to call their bluff so to speak and see how far they are going to go with this. Buying a "code" isn't illegal and will like to see them prove I used it. Will let you all know if and when a 2nd letter arrives. Anyone who hasn't received a first letter should be wary and not sign for a registered letter. They will pursue you if they have an address and have more evidence such as PM stating your up and running, etc. I highly doubt they have asked for any data logs from your/any ISP's to track you. Rollin' the dice......

Also consider that posts like these and any others on any sites that are incriminating can be gathered and used against you in court IF it goes that far. Be assured Charlie DOES monitor most all fta sites so keep that in mind at all times. JMHO

[Stirlingsat]

Interesting and informative read so far. Hopefully this is considered a topical enough question to remain in this thread: is anyone aware of there being any similar cases of demand letters or litigation against end-users on the part of Beverly north of the border?

[kutter]

Interesting and informative read so far. Hopefully this is considered a topical enough question to remain in this thread: is anyone aware of there being any similar cases of demand letters or litigation against end-users on the part of Beverly north of the border?

lol ... that should get the ball rolling :)

yes BELL did send out demand letters ... but as far I know they never followed it up with legal action ... (seems like their intentions weren't all that honorable) ... Hanni would love to hear me say this, but it actually borders on extortion if they didn't intend to follow through with and file a law suit :) ....

by the way , it wasn't over IKS though ...

IMO, I doubt they will bother going after IKS end users ... of course you need to realize that this is just an opinion ...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

lol ... that should get the ball rolling :)

yes BELL did send out demand letters ... but as far I know they never followed it up with legal action ... (seems like their intentions weren't all that honorable) ... Hanni would love to hear me say that this, but it actually borders on extortion if they didn't intend to follow through with and file a law suit :) ....

by the way , it wasn't over IKS though ...

IMO, I doubt they will bother going after IKS end users ... of course your need to realize that this is just an opinion ...



Another problem is what they could get as fines against end users in Canada. In the US they can realized $10,000 not in Canada. Their demand amount in the demand letters that were sent was probably higher than what a court would award.



GS2

[kutter]

Another problem is what they could get as fines against end users in Canada. In the US they can realized $10,000 not in Canada. Their demand amount in the demand letters that were sent was probably higher than what a court would award.



GS2

I sincerely hope that no one is every taken to task for IKS.

While our Government would have you believe that the modernization of the Copyright Act is beneficial to end users and limits the liability, it still allows for statutory damages of up to $5000 per violation. Of course that's over and above anything that could be brought as a result of a violation of the Radio Communications Act...

where's kokes when you need him .... hahahhahahahahaahahahahahaha

[Anubis]

Umm, remember Beaver tv? DN worked in conjunction with Bell. I believe there was another case in the Ottawa region but can't remember if it was DN only and since it's the wifes b-day I'm not about to do some research.

Alex would probably have a better idea.

[kutter]

Umm, remember Beaver tv? DN worked in conjunction with Bell. I believe there was another case in the Ottawa region but can't remember if it was DN only and since it's the wifes b-day I'm not about to do some research.

Alex would probably have a better idea.

all of the providers have taken legal action against dealers in Canada, but I'm fairly certain that none have taken action against end users ...

[Nostradamus]

if the dealers that got busted had only been selling in Canada they might have remained safe from DN. I think DN would have a hard time though trying to sue someone for lost revenue as long as all they were doing is viewing in an area where DN is not allowed to sell their services.

[kutter]

if the dealers that got busted had only been selling in Canada they might have remained safe from DN. I think DN would have a hard time though trying to sue someone for lost revenue as long as all they were doing is viewing in an area where DN is not allowed to sell their services.

but BELL certainly can show damages, and that's what Stirlingsat was asking

Interesting and informative read so far. Hopefully this is considered a topical enough question to remain in this thread: is anyone aware of there being any similar cases of demand letters or litigation against end-users on the part of Beverly north of the border?

[Nostradamus]

Ok I kind of misread it. and I really should have quoted Anubis as I was directing it more towards him and his comments. <br />
<br />
but yep I agree the criminal aspect is much worse in canada then the...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

But even myself charged as a dealer my personal fines were about $760 per violation while the company was about $1,240 per violation. Given that what would an end user received for lets say one...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Nagra could sue for services in Canada only. DTV sued a dealer in Canada for selling grey market services in Canada and was successful.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Continued.



[71] On this ground, the defendants rely upon the same asserted deficiencies in the evidence as they did in contending at that there was little or no evidence of damage to found a claim in the tort of fraud. The defendants concede, and properly so, that the plaintiff has an obligation to remediate against unauthorized use of its encrypted signals in Canada in order to protect the holders of the Canadian copyright to the programming and not to be in breach of the Radiocommunication Act.

[72] Against that backdrop, however, they assert that when carefully analyzed, the plaintiff's claims of loss and damage arising from grey market activity are at best tenuous and simply do not justify a finding of either irreparable harm or very serious actual or potential damage.

[73] Not all harm or damage is quantifiable in monetary terms. The harm which the defendants' activities in the Canadian grey market exposed the plaintiff to flow from its legal responsibility to act within the boundaries of the licence granted to it, to not encroach upon the markets of other copyright holders, to avoid breaching statutory proscriptions and to establish a reputation in the industry conducive to maintaining and expanding its commercial relationships.

[74] It is manifestly not in the plaintiff's economic interest to be consistently breaching the licence granted to it, encroaching on other's markets, breaching statutory conditions or tainting its reputation in the industry. Findings such as those in R. v. Ereiser that DTV "participates in a thinly veiled scheme to circumvent the laws of Canada" put the plaintiff's economic interests at risk. It follows that the defendants' and other's use of the plaintiff's signals in a way that is inimical with the plaintiff's contractual and statutory responsibility creates, in the absence of effective preventative action by the plaintiff, a very serious risk of harm which cannot necessarily be quantified.

[75] I also conclude that the harm to the plaintiff is irreparable, as it would be difficult if not impossible to gauge the ongoing or future effects of exposing the plaintiff to the harm at issue, and damages would therefore be no adequate compensation. As noted in RJR-MacDonald, "irreparable refers to the nature of the harm suffered, rather than its magnitude." It includes "permanent market loss or irrevocable damage to its business reputation."

[76] In this case, the balance of convenience clearly favours the plaintiff and not the defendants, whose interests at stake appear on the materials before me to be proscribed by statute and in violation of the copyright of others, in other words, to be unlawful.




GS2

[fn59]

if the dealers that got busted had only been selling in Canada they might have remained safe from DN. I think DN would have a hard time though trying to sue someone for lost revenue as long as all they were doing is viewing in an area where DN is not allowed to sell their services.

I know some people who were modifying DN receivers, in Canada. Getting sued for $10 million. They're on Satscam page.
DN uses Canadian lawyers/private investigators to do their work over here.

[kutter]

The fact that BELL can show actual damages I would venture to guess that any judgment would be based on whatever the top subscription rate is times the number of months they can show you were engaged...

[soupkitchen]

Hey all, it's been a couple of months since the first EXTORTION letter from a law firm in Houston and haven't heard or received a second letter. I had some people research this firm and the talk was they are bottom feeders in their area. So my take is if you initiate contact with them if you get the letter then your chances of getting another letter if you ignore them is higher. I decided to ignore the letter and started to plan on a defense but have not been contacted again. They are fishing and if you take their bait it may cost you 3k..... my situation was a single PP transaction over 3 yrs ago, no PM's or any other emails....
IF I do receive a second letter I will update, Thanks for all the input!

[tessa8940]

If it was over three years ago, they are just trying to scare you into responding. Once you respond, they have you and can proceed with prosecution. I received and e-mail after the Wolfman debacle. Never responded. There was no follow-up. Good luck!

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

If it was over three years ago, they are just trying to scare you into responding. Once you respond, they have you and can proceed with prosecution. I received and e-mail after the Wolfman debacle. Never responded. There was no follow-up. Good luck!


They sent you an email ? A demand letter by email ? I probably would not respond to an email also but would not think they would be sending letters by emails.



GS2

[tessa8940]

They got my e-mail from Wolfman and where trying to get me to respond, due to the fact I had not purchased from Wolfman for over a year or so. They where trying to get me to admit guilt by responding to their correspondence!!!

[jazzman]

There's no way they can prove you read or even received an e-mail from them so no worries. The actual demand letters came as registered mail that you have to sign for.

[runamok]

If you don't sign for the letter they send same letter by regular mail.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

They got my e-mail from Wolfman and where trying to get me to respond, due to the fact I had not purchased from Wolfman for over a year or so. They where trying to get me to admit guilt by responding to their correspondence!!!



If you received an email only than I assume they don't have your physical address. Although there are alternative methods available for substitution service from the court to be served with a lawsuit I do not believe email is one of them.


Best to check with a lawyer in your jurisdiction what constitutes proper service.



GS2