Court letter

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I was not in a fight with Dave. I was charged by the Canadian Government. My fight was a long time ago. I did fight a long battle of seven years and lost. I admire anyone who puts up a battle and...

[sodusme]

Its your opinion it has no merit. They will be arguing based on the complaint filled not the demand letter. The demand letter basically offers you a settlement before court an option you can choose or not choose. The demand letter is not filled in court.





You can try to sue alleging it was extortion but that was tried before with Dave demand letters and the court ruled their demand letters were not extortion. Their allege the circumvention in 1201(a) because of the purchase to a service that only serves as a way to circumvent. The court can take that as reasonable inference or more probable than not that you did circumvent. People are convicted of murder with circumstantial evidence in criminal court without evidence showing the person actually committed the murder.










What good defens are you going to mount with knowing how IKS really works. Do you think the Plaintiffs don't know how IKS actually works ? Do you think their experts who testify if need be. don't know how it actually works. ?




GS2

But again the whole problem comes in where they are seeking recompense under a certain section of the DMCA (in the demand letter) that being section 1201 (a)(1) and that section unfortunately does not allow for relief to be sought under the guidelines they are maintaining that it does. So in laymens terms they are seeking relief under false pretense. The section of the DMCA they are issuing the demand letter under is written under 1201 (a)(1) and is actually citing wrong doing or a violation that would fall under 1201 (a)(2) as is stated by the letter of the law.

Now once they get you into court and you can read the "lawsuits" to verify this they are then switching gears and talking about how IKS works and are bringing suit against you based on their belief on how they think IKS works. This is why you need to know how it actually works to be able to actually refute their lawsuit once it hits a court of law.

Its not my opinion that is has no merit its fact. If you seek "damages" under a law that you are miscategorizing or misrepresenting that opens you up to a lawsuit for extortion or harassment. That is fact. I didn't make that up its law. I know you didn't say I made it up but you are missing that entire point that the demand letter and the subsequent lawsuit would be subject to "extortion or harassment" if ALL they cited was section 1201 (a)(1) of the DMCA. Its almost a 100% chance they will file the lawsuit under 1201 (a)(1) as that is what they have used in the past so why change it? This is not hard to prove from a defendants stand point for the simple fact that the plaintiff CANNOT prove circumvention actually took place. All they have are some codes and i.p.'s and emails and other circumstantial "evidence". I know, I know all they need is 51% but it should never reach that point because as I've said its "miscategorizing" or "misrepresenting" the law as its written. That clause is written for actual circumvention having taken place not for possession of an item you believe may have orchestrated the circumvention of a copyrighted work. The law is very clearly written and defined in 1201 (a)(2) as to afford relief for someone who "possesses" an item that is used for the circumventing of a copyright work. If they really wanted to sue you under that demand letter the way it is worded they would need to sue you under 1201 (a)(2) not 1201 (a)(1).

Forget all the "circumstantial" evidence as it should never reach that point in the first place. The demand letter and subsequent lawsuit are "miscategorizing" or "misrepresenting" the law as it affords them relief under section 1201 (a)(1) of the DMCA. The reason I'm saying that the lawsuit would be miscategorizing the law is because if they are suing you based solely on the "usage" of some codes which again they cannot prove than they are seeking recompense of relief under false pretense as well. If they could prove you actually used them why wouldn't they have issued the demand letters under that premise? Why would the demand letters cite the "purchase" of the codes as being a violation if they were so certain you were guilty of USING them than issue the demand letters stating "usage" not the purchase or possession of the codes. Its because they know they cannot prove that in a court of law. They are banking on the fact that you will answer the demand with payment OR meet them in court where they will switch gears and start the discussion of you actually circumventing their signal.

[dishuser]

it's posted all over every fta site what iks codes will do
if you purchase them and get served what is your excuse?
ignorance?I didn't use them?
sorry but that won't fly in any court of law

[sodusme]

it's posted all over every fta site what iks codes will do
if you purchase them and get served what is your excuse?
ignorance?I didn't use them?
sorry but that won't fly in any court of law

Could be a number of defenses:

I ordered them for a family member (like that one poster).

The code never actually worked in the first place (DN/Nagra prove that it ever worked).

Certain other equipment that the "pirate" owned quit working i.e. his receiver went out, dish LNB went out, dongle went out.

The "pirate" couldn't figure out how to enter the code or how to get connected to the server.

These may sound "lame" on paper but the bottom line is these guys CANNOT prove you ever used these codes to get free programming and the way the actual lawsuit reads they are required to. Now the way the demand letter is written they are seeking "relief" under the fact that you bought a code. That is entirely different than actually using a code (per the wording of the DCMA violation sections (a)(1) compared to (a)(2). Think of it this way in a criminal case for example (yes I know these are civil this is merely an example): Have you ever heard of someone getting caught with a joint and than the cops switching up things and trying to fine them as if they were caught distributing? Of course not as that is not the way laws work. The same thing applies here they have caught you in "possession" of a device (the code) that allows circumvention of a copyright work but they are charging you as if you actually "used" that device. The reason there are different sections of that DMCA is because there are different situations that violate it. Actual usage or piracy having taken place is viewed as different than mere possession of a device that you think may have contributed to someone pirating a copyrighted work.

[alex70olds]

DMCA? What about ECPA? lol
19082
19083
19084
19085

Just a sample of what you will have to deal with.

[jeldf]

DMCA? What about ECPA? lol
19082
19083
19084
19085

Just a sample of what you will have to deal with.

Well those certainly throw a brick into the equation!

[hotdog2]

Between Wuf , his computer , DEI's access to his site logins and their access to AbaDSS and other site postings by morons , I'd say it's pretty much signed , sealed and delivered to nagra .

Got to love how in that Aba evidence , Aba says ;

Hello DEI account .

You have never posted before . lol

[sodusme]

DMCA? What about ECPA? lol
19082
19083
19084
19085

Just a sample of what you will have to deal with.

OK what about it? LOL

This paragraph is the only one that you need to read in that .PDF:


Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a), 2520(a). The
ECPA makes it unlawful to “intentionally intercept” any “electronic communication.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 2511(1)(a). Section 2520(a) provides a private cause of action to enforce violations of section
2511(1)(a). Sanchez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79932, at *11; see also DirecTV, Inc. v. Bennett,
470 F.3d 565, 569 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[A] private right of action is allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 2520
for violations of § 2511.”). Encrypted satellite broadcasts of television programming, such as
those transmitted by DISH Network, constitute “electronic communications” for purposes of the
ECPA. See, e.g., Sanchez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79932, at *12 (citing DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb,
545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008)); United States v. Lande, 968 F.2d 907, 909-10 (9th Cir. 1992).
DISH Network adequately pleads a claim for relief under section 2511(1)(a). According
to the complaint, Defendant purchased a subscription to NFPS and IKS Rocket. (Dkt. 1, Pls.’
Compl. at ¶ 26.) Defendant accessed the NFPS and IKS Rocket services using an unauthorized
receiver that had been purposefully loaded with piracy-enabling software.

The bold print is what needs to be "proven" and IMO cannot be proven beyond 51%. Now I realize I'm not the judge, jury or executioner in this but they cannot prove these allegations. Now on the other hand the one in the red yes they can prove, however that is not what they alleging in this lawsuit complaint. They alleging that you intercepted their signal (something they cannot prove) and they are alleging that you accessed the NFPS and Rocket services (again something they cannot prove).

Now of course I'll ask again if they were so sure they could prove this why wasn't their mention of it in the demand letter? Why did the demand letter simply target the fact that you purchased codes? Why did the demand letter simply mention all the "evidence" they had gathered concerning the code you had purchased? Why was it cleverly worded to say "among other evidence"? I'll tell you why: Because they know for a fact they CANNOT prove you actually circumvented, intercepted, stole, viewed or any other adjective you wanna plunk in there with regards to their signal.

Another interesting note is they are citing this Directv case: (citing DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008) as evidence of wrongdoing. Hmm very interesting since we know that Directv was on a witch hunt and prosecuting people for loopers, unloopers, card readers and other "pirate devices" that could have been used for other means. Now could these codes be used for other means? Doubtful, but we now know that in this day and age with all the access keys that are made for doors and other devices that that original lawsuit from Directv would likely not hold water. So they are citing an outdated "victory" for Directv based on an erroneous judgment made back in 2008. Very interesting.

So still think they got the gut shot on this huh? I don't....

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

But again the whole problem comes in where they are seeking recompense under a certain section of the DMCA (in the demand letter) that being section 1201 (a)(1) and that section unfortunately does not allow for relief to be sought under the guidelines they are maintaining that it does. So in laymens terms they are seeking relief under false pretense. The section of the DMCA they are issuing the demand letter under is written under 1201 (a)(1) and is actually citing wrong doing or a violation that would fall under 1201 (a)(2) as is stated by the letter of the law.


That is your opinion. I don't see anything wrong with the section they use. They say you violated the section and seek relief. No one has decided its under false pretense. They believe their evidence supports their claim. Your forgetting the bar for evidence/proof in a civil lawsuit is low.



Now once they get you into court and you can read the "lawsuits" to verify this they are then switching gears and talking about how IKS works and are bringing suit against you based on their belief on how they think IKS works. This is why you need to know how it actually works to be able to actually refute their lawsuit once it hits a court of law.


How they claim IKS works in their lawsuits seems to be accurate in my opinion.




26. To access the IKS server, Defendant used a pirate satellite receiver loaded with piracy software, which is a software device designed to circumvent the technological measures used to protect access to copyright television programming. Each time Defendant tuned his pirate satellite receiver to a scrambled DISH Network television channel, the pirate satellite receiver would access the Nfusion Private Server pirate television service and IKS server to request the descrambling control word for that particular channel, the IKS server would return the control word, and Defendant would descramble the encrypted signal and view the television programming without authorization.





[b]Its not my opinion that is has no merit its fact. If you seek "damages" under a law that you are miscategorizing or misrepresenting that opens you up to a lawsuit for extortion or harassment. That is fact. I didn't make that up its law. I know you didn't say I made it up but you are missing that entire point that the demand letter and the subsequent lawsuit would be subject to "extortion or harassment" if ALL they cited was section 1201 (a)(1) of the DMCA. Its almost a 100% chance they will file the lawsuit under 1201 (a)(1) as that is what they have used in the past so why change it? This is not hard to prove from a defendants stand point for the simple fact that the plaintiff CANNOT prove circumvention actually took place. All they have are some codes and i.p.'s and emails and other circumstantial "evidence". I know, I know all they need is 51% but it should never reach that point because as I've said its "miscategorizing" or "misrepresenting" the law as its written. That clause is written for actual circumvention having taken place not for possession of an item you believe may have orchestrated the circumvention of a copyrighted work. The law is very clearly written and defined in 1201 (a)(2) as to afford relief for someone who "possesses" an item that is used for the circumventing of a copyright work. If they really wanted to sue you under that demand letter the way it is worded they would need to sue you under 1201 (a)(2) not 1201 (a)(1).


It is your opinion. No way can it be fact. In fact previous case law suggests the opposite of what you say.



Here, Sosa has alleged that in its demand letters and in telephone conversations with Sosa and the other plaintiffs, DIRECTV made false representations of fact and law, and that as a result Sosa settled DIRECTV's claims. It is well established, however, that misrepresentations of the law are not actionable as fraud, including under the mail and wire fraud statutes, because statements of the law are considered merely opinions and may not be relied upon absent special circumstances not present here. Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir.2004).




Forget all the "circumstantial" evidence as it should never reach that point in the first place. The demand letter and subsequent lawsuit are "miscategorizing" or "misrepresenting" the law as it affords them relief under section 1201 (a)(1) of the DMCA. The reason I'm saying that the lawsuit would be miscategorizing the law is because if they are suing you based solely on the "usage" of some codes which again they cannot prove than they are seeking recompense of relief under false pretense as well. If they could prove you actually used them why wouldn't they have issued the demand letters under that premise? Why would the demand letters cite the "purchase" of the codes as being a violation if they were so certain you were guilty of USING them than issue the demand letters stating "usage" not the purchase or possession of the codes. Its because they know they cannot prove that in a court of law. They are banking on the fact that you will answer the demand with payment OR meet them in court where they will switch gears and start the discussion of you actually circumventing their signal.



If you have a safe with money it in that disappears when the only other person in the world that had the combination was so and so and the safe was not broken into, you can file a lawsuit saying so and so stole the money even know you did not see so and so steal it. Its no misrepresentation for you to do that in a demand letter. The court will decide if its more probable or not based on the evidence including the circumstantial evidence that can be very compelling.


I don't think you would find one lawyer that would agree with what you saying in regards to the demand letter but I could be wrong.




GS2

[jeldf]

OK what about it? LOL

This paragraph is the only one that you need to read in that .PDF:



The bold print is what needs to be "proven" and IMO cannot be proven beyond 51%. Now I realize I'm not the judge, jury or executioner in this but they cannot prove these allegations. Now on the other hand the one in the red yes they can prove, however that is not what they alleging in this lawsuit complaint. They alleging that you intercepted their signal (something they cannot prove) and they are alleging that you accessed the NFPS and Rocket services (again something they cannot prove).

Now of course I'll ask again if they were so sure they could prove this why wasn't their mention of it in the demand letter? Why did the demand letter simply target the fact that you purchased codes? Why did the demand letter simply mention all the "evidence" they had gathered concerning the code you had purchased? Why was it cleverly worded to say "among other evidence"? I'll tell you why: Because they know for a fact they CANNOT prove you actually circumvented, intercepted, stole, viewed or any other adjective you wanna plunk in there with regards to their signal.

Another interesting note is they are citing this Directv case: (citing DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008) as evidence of wrongdoing. Hmm very interesting since we know that Directv was on a witch hunt and prosecuting people for loopers, unloopers, card readers and other "pirate devices" that could have been used for other means. Now could these codes be used for other means? Doubtful, but we now know that in this day and age with all the access keys that are made for doors and other devices that that original lawsuit from Directv would likely not hold water. So they are citing an outdated "victory" for Directv based on an erroneous judgment made back in 2008. Very interesting.

So still think they got the gut shot on this huh? I don't....

just dawned on me. ECPA makes it unlawful to “intentionally intercept” any “electronic communication.” So how does the NSA get away with it?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

DMCA? What about ECPA? lol
19082
19083
19084
19085

Just a sample of what you will have to deal with.


That is why there is nothing wrong with what they say in their demand letter. You can't say its false, misleading and its fact without seeing their evidence.


The demand letter would have to be a complete sham but with that evidence you just posted that could not happen in my view.




GS2

[hotdog2]

OK what about it? LOL

This paragraph is the only one that you need to read in that .PDF:



The bold print is what needs to be "proven" and IMO cannot be proven beyond 51%. Now I realize I'm not the judge, jury or executioner in this but they cannot prove these allegations. Now on the other hand the one in the red yes they can prove, however that is not what they alleging in this lawsuit complaint. They alleging that you intercepted their signal (something they cannot prove) and they are alleging that you accessed the NFPS and Rocket services (again something they cannot prove).

Now of course I'll ask again if they were so sure they could prove this why wasn't their mention of it in the demand letter? Why did the demand letter simply target the fact that you purchased codes? Why did the demand letter simply mention all the "evidence" they had gathered concerning the code you had purchased? Why was it cleverly worded to say "among other evidence"? I'll tell you why: Because they know for a fact they CANNOT prove you actually circumvented, intercepted, stole, viewed or any other adjective you wanna plunk in there with regards to their signal.

Another interesting note is they are citing this Directv case: (citing DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2008) as evidence of wrongdoing. Hmm very interesting since we know that Directv was on a witch hunt and prosecuting people for loopers, unloopers, card readers and other "pirate devices" that could have been used for other means. Now could these codes be used for other means? Doubtful, but we now know that in this day and age with all the access keys that are made for doors and other devices that that original lawsuit from Directv would likely not hold water. So they are citing an outdated "victory" for Directv based on an erroneous judgment made back in 2008. Very interesting.

So still think they got the gut shot on this huh? I don't....


When they have wufs records showing the nics the defendant used on the forum and when purchasing codes and you have that person using that nic posting on the forum saying he just went down on NFPS than he rebooted and all is good , that in itself is enough circumstantial evidence for a gut shot .

Throw in that he purchased codes multiple times and also emailed Wuf saying that 2 codes were not connecting and that codes had been working perfect for for months till today .

All this goes to prove he was circumventing and is more than enough for a civil case .

I'll bet that emails to Wuf and forum posts on sites are the common factors for those who recieved letters and those who didn't although they have paypal and wuf records on many others .

[sodusme]

That is your opinion. I don't see anything wrong with the section they use. They say you violated the section and seek relief. No one has decided its under false pretense. They believe their evidence supports their claim. Your forgetting the bar for evidence/proof in a civil lawsuit is low.





How they claim IKS works in their lawsuits seems to be accurate in my opinion.











It is your opinion. No way can it be fact. In fact previous case law suggests the opposite of what you say.










If you have a safe with money it in that disappears when the only other person in the world that had the combination was so and so and the safe was not broken into, you can file a lawsuit saying so and so stole the money even know you did not see so and so steal it. Its no misrepresentation for you to do that in a demand letter. The court will decide if its more probable or not based on the evidence including the circumstantial evidence that can be very compelling.


I don't think you would find one lawyer that would agree with what you saying in regards to the demand letter but I could be wrong.




GS2

The misrepresentation comes into play if I cite a section of theft law that does not apply. It also comes into play if I am seeking damages under that erroneous section of law that would not apply to the "case" I believe I have at hand against so-and-so.

That is called "miscategorizing" the law and the resulting claims would also than be "miscategorized". That opens me (and DN/Nagra in this case) up to harassment and/or extortion counter suit. Thus it IS law. You're going on the fact that they are free to "allege" any wrongdoing they see fit under any law they see fit, and YES they are. But the "miscategorizing" or "misrepresentation" comes into play under the relief that is being sought. You cannot seek relief under a section of law erroneously. That is the problem with this whole lawsuit of theirs. If you are seeking relief under a section of law that any idiot judge should be able to see does not apply than obviously any resulting damages sought therein also becomes subject to the same concept. And no I'm not comparing you to an "idiot" judge I just feel any judge that is siding with them is an idiot LOL.

I'm not trying to split hairs here. They could seek relief under a "dog at large" law, if they thought they could prove it, but they had better not try to collect recompense under that law. That would be where DN/Nagra and their attorneys are in error here. You're free to sue under any law your heart desires but when you try to seek those damages and actually collect on them is when the problem arises.

[sodusme]

When they have wufs records showing the nics the defendant used on the forum and when purchasing codes and you have that person using that nic posting on the forum saying he just went down on NFPS than he rebooted and all is good , that in itself is enough circumstantial evidence for a gut shot .

Throw in that he purchased codes multiple times and also emailed Wuf saying that 2 codes were not connecting and that codes had been working perfect for for months till today .

All this goes to prove he was circumventing and is more than enough for a civil case .

I'll bet that emails to Wuf and forum posts on sites are the common factors for those who recieved letters and those who didn't although they have paypal and wuf records on many others .

Oh of course there will be mitigating situations as you are describing. My whole premise for my argument would be for someone that maybe never posted and thought "What else could they have"? I would be interested in knowing if all the people that got letters had been posting on forums? If DN/Nagara is going after only those that were posting? Please don't post back though if you were posting on forums as its not that important. I'm just speaking out loud here and there would be no reason to give DN/Nagra anymore ammunition against you.

I'm just having some friendly banter with my take on why I think this should not float. Its by no means a cookie cutter stance or platform to stand on so please don't take this too serious and throw away your letter, and gamble everything you have to lose on my ramblings here. Again ALL of what I have posted is how I would "tentatively" handle the matter and just some food for thought.

I've pretty much said my peace on this so good luck to all involved in this. :thumbsup:

[hotdog2]

A person purchasing codes more than once would infer that said person was circumventing the nagra signal , was satisfied with the service and thus wanted to continue using it . Good enough for a civil case . A person is not going to purchase more of something he found unsatisfactory . The emails , PM's and postings are bonuses for the plaintiff .

By the way , those letters were in no way required. A summons could have been nagra's first step .

[kboom]

I would suspect that most that have gotten a letter and paid probably looked back and saw what they had posted and went opps! Which was my case under a different nick. When you fxxk up like that no point in fighting the issue. Live and learn.

Sods comments could work with the right set of circumstances and of course the person that got the letter would have to be dam near a virgin. Bought codes and never posted on anything. Would love to see one person like that and then we could take a collection have Sod mitigate the case for him and see how he does. Hell Sod you may have chosen the wrong profession.

Good discussions going on and lord so many opinions. But that is what makes the world go around.

[Fare]

Sods comments could work with the right set of circumstances and of course the person that got the letter would have to be dam near a virgin. Bought codes and never posted on anything. Would love to see one person like that and then we could take a collection have Sod mitigate the case for him and see how he does. Hell Sod you may have chosen the wrong profession.

Good discussions going on and lord so many opinions. But that is what makes the world go around.
Back in '11 i got codes from wufshi*t and i think i may send him one PM only,it was on this forum i didn't have maybe one or two posts total, most of the time just abserving, but still i got demand letter.....

[Hannibalector]

can anyone come up with a reason as to why a billion dollar company can't simply send a letter or email saying we have reason to believe that you have been accessing our programming without payment and unless this action stops we will have to take measures to litigate or demand payment for what we believe to be a reasonable amount owed for programming viewed ?

there"s always choices and their choice is to profit further without regards to the law or citation of said law regardless of what they perceive.

I'm going to send some of this thread to a couple attorneys to see if there's merit in a broad letter for a demand letter fired back for extortion and see what the response is, a tool for those that wish to sign up in one single action with an attorney to intermediate.

[sodusme]

Why would you expect them to play softtball?REally???
These people stole from them, and they know it.Would you be as forgiving if somebody violated you in the same way?

Eh not so fast there....

You are falling into the same trap these judges are using to decide these cases I feel. They are "alleged" to have stolen programming it has NOT been proven (and IMO cannot be proven but I've already voiced my opinion on that). You are "innocent" until proven "guilty" in a court of law. Just because you are hauled into court on some trumped up allegation and that is exactly what this is as it lacks merit in its wording of the letter of the law and thus the ultimate lawsuit that follows doesn't mean you are automatically "guilty".

[alex70olds]

I said that was for.starters. that was a default case. If ypu pish then
M, they eill serve your ISP. Simple. Really. Sod i love ya, but you dont fully understand what they will hit you with. Lol thank voodness we were noy subject to these letyers

[alex70olds]

Da mn. Phone

[sodusme]

I said that was for.starters. that was a default case. If ypu pish then
M, they eill serve your ISP. Simple. Really. Sod i love ya, but you dont fully understand what they will hit you with. Lol thank voodness we were noy subject to these letyers

LOL are you drunk? What the hell I can hardly read any of that can I get a decoder please? ;)

Well than they better move on the ISP records 'cause as it stands right now there is no de facto standard time frame on how long ISP's must keep records. So unless they have moved on it immediately in all likelihood some ISP's records would be gone. I posted some info. a while back on how long that time frame is regarding the different ISP's, I think Verizon had the longest time frame for keeping records and that is probably due to the fact that they also offer voice subscriptions.

[Hannibalector]

I said that was for.starters. that was a default case. If ypu pish then
M, they eill serve your ISP. Simple. Really. Sod i love ya, but you dont fully understand what they will hit you with. Lol thank voodness we were noy subject to these letyers

for christ sakes alex stop using that pos tablet....lol

alex Im going to seek legal council for these people and find out if a reverse demand letter can be justified and you know it if I say it, I will find out the merit and put this together, this will take nothing more then a drafted letter of demand seeking redress for action not proven, why is that so hard to digest ?

[Hannibalector]

LOL are you drunk? What the hell I can hardly read any of that can I get a decoder please? ;)

Well than they better move on the ISP records 'cause as it stands right now there is no de facto standard time frame on how long ISP's must keep records. So unless they have moved on it immediately in all likelihood some ISP's records would be gone. I posted some info. a while back on how long that time frame is regarding the different ISP's, I think Verizon had the longest time frame for keeping records and that is probably due to the fact that they also offer voice subscriptions.

he's got tablet thats fooked up and it's funny as hell when he posts with it, if he's drunk CHEERS ALEX

[Hannibalector]

the most important thing in life is to stand up for what you believe and to stand up for the ones that are actually innocent of anything regardless of circumstance, one innocent person run rough shod and demanded a letter of payment is vastly deserved of protection under the law and there rights to fire back

[dishuser]

he's got tablet thats fooked up and it's funny as hell when he posts with it, if he's drunk CHEERS ALEX

he already said he's on his phone

[Hannibalector]

he already said he's on his phone

it's all good, his phone sux sh*t

[sodusme]

it's all good, his phone sux sh*t

I thought it was one of those phones that had a DKP?

DKP=Dyslexic Key Pad

:hehe:

[Hannibalector]

Not the point...DN knows what these guys were up to.Not neccessary to prove it in THEIR eyes bro.These are not criminal proceedings:they are civil.Followong bad advice will cost them more that neccessary.Pay up, and move on.
Public, and most private iks is doomed.I hope you can see it.I got out while the gettin' was good.

why is it that DN should not pay up on a demand letter from those who have received letters of extortion

[Hannibalector]

you fully realize you're shoveling sh*t down peoples throat right ?

[Hannibalector]

I'm actually going to find out if demand letters are retroactive for those who paid, if the standard can be met forthwith for action of extortion it would seem right for all

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

The misrepresentation comes into play if I cite a section of theft law that does not apply. It also comes into play if I am seeking damages under that erroneous section of law that would not apply to the "case" I believe I have at hand against so-and-so.


There is nothing erroneous and no misrepresentation in the demand letter being sent.



That is called "miscategorizing" the law and the resulting claims would also than be "miscategorized". That opens me (and DN/Nagra in this case) up to harassment and/or extortion counter suit. Thus it IS law. You're going on the fact that they are free to "allege" any wrongdoing they see fit under any law they see fit, and YES they are. But the "miscategorizing" or "misrepresentation" comes into play under the relief that is being sought. You cannot seek relief under a section of law erroneously. That is the problem with this whole lawsuit of theirs. If you are seeking relief under a section of law that any idiot judge should be able to see does not apply than obviously any resulting damages sought therein also becomes subject to the same concept. And no I'm not comparing you to an "idiot" judge I just feel any judge that is siding with them is an idiot LOL.


Again there is nothing erroneous, there is no miscategorizing, there is no misrepresentation. They seek out relief in their lawsuit what they say in their demand letter. The section of law absolutely applies. Your not going to see any defense lawyer saying different in defending someone in these cases. They lay out their claim in sections 1 to 27. How can you say its erroneous when you haven't even seen the evidence. The law allows for statutory damages and they will have no problem collecting if they try if they get a judgment.



I'm not trying to split hairs here. They could seek relief under a "dog at large" law, if they thought they could prove it, but they had better not try to collect recompense under that law. That would be where DN/Nagra and their attorneys are in error here. You're free to sue under any law your heart desires but when you try to seek those damages and actually collect on them is when the problem arises.


How can they be in error to try to collect if they get a judgment from the court.



GS2

[alex70olds]

I'm actually going to find out if demand letters are retroactive for those who paid, if the standard can be met forthwith for action of extortion it would seem right for all

lol what ever. I could give a crap.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

can anyone come up with a reason as to why a billion dollar company can't simply send a letter or email saying we have reason to believe that you have been accessing our programming without payment and unless this action stops we will have to take measures to litigate or demand payment for what we believe to be a reasonable amount owed for programming viewed ?

there"s always choices and their choice is to profit further without regards to the law or citation of said law regardless of what they perceive.

I'm going to send some of this thread to a couple attorneys to see if there's merit in a broad letter for a demand letter fired back for extortion and see what the response is, a tool for those that wish to sign up in one single action with an attorney to intermediate.



I certainly would not send out an email with a threat to stop or else. That is what a demand letter is for. An email would be laughed at and tossed as toilet paper. Waste of money & time.


Without regards to the law ? The plaintiffs are not breaking the law. They allege the defendants are. You as a defendant have a right to argue that you are not.


If any attorney actually answers you I won't be surprise if they point out the case law regarding demand letters as I have. That was a class action brought against Dave on their demand letters and what happens if you lose than you become subject to paying court costs.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

why is it that DN should not pay up on a demand letter from those who have received letters of extortion


Huh ? I understand they have the power, they have the money, they have the paid experts, paid investigators, basically all the tools to crush you which disgusts you and I would agree perhaps unfair in a way to the defendant who does not have what they have to defend themselves but you need to take out the emotion and look at it subjectively.


They have information that people are stealing their signals and have decided to pursue their rights under the law against those people unfortunately. If you have a business and had information people were stealing from it than you would have the same rights to use. It can only be extortion if their claim was a sham made up totally unfounded to purposely extort money from you but they are going to court and filling lawsuits with evidence.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

the most important thing in life is to stand up for what you believe and to stand up for the ones that are actually innocent of anything regardless of circumstance, one innocent person run rough shod and demanded a letter of payment is vastly deserved of protection under the law and there rights to fire back


You have the right to defend yourself in court and fire back. You can stand up in court in what you believe. Been there done that.


If your innocent than not only can you fire back than you should win also.


What your having trouble with is identifying that plaintiffs have a right to pursue against those they allege are receiving signals without payment.



GS2

[sodusme]

There is nothing erroneous and no misrepresentation in the demand letter being sent.





Again there is nothing erroneous, there is no miscategorizing, there is no misrepresentation. They seek out relief in their lawsuit what they say in their demand letter. The section of law absolutely applies. Your not going to see any defense lawyer saying different in defending someone in these cases. They lay out their claim in sections 1 to 27. How can you say its erroneous when you haven't even seen the evidence. The law allows for statutory damages and they will have no problem collecting if they try if they get a judgment.





How can they be in error to try to collect if they get a judgment from the court.



GS2

OK my final answer than I'm putting this dead horse to bed. I'm not on here to argue my opinions I've made it very clear where I stand on this matter and won't continue to go back and forth while you try to sway me. Sorry I have more pressing things to do. No offense meant but its obvious you are not changing your opinion on this nor will I.

So ONE last time: The erroneous, miscateborizing, and misrepresentation come into play with the section of the DMCA they are citing. This "demand letter" is nothing more than a cookie cutter form sent out to thousands of defendants in the hops of getting them to pay up. It just so happens in this case it concerns something (for the final time) they cannot prove. There is no way in hell they can reasonably prove that you actually connected to that pay server. Any circumstantial evidence can be explained away if you are good enough and know what you are talking about. You simply offer up a refute to the allegations and the judge decides who trumps who.

Now think about this for a minute. The ONLY and I mean the ONLY 100% (again FORGET about this b.s circumstantial evidence) way to prove you were connected to the NFPS or Rocket server is to get ISP logs. So lets consider that for a second if they DID get ISP logs than explain why in the hell they would not have shut down that server? I'll tell you why its because they do not have any ISP records of you connecting to anything. Those are the only ISP records that would be of any benefit in this. If you didn't flap your gums and post "Good fight last night" or "Thanks for the porn" or anything else stupid than they have minimal evidence against you. If you think they have more than post back with it and I"ll be glad to go over it with you.

If you still are adamant this demand letter is a "prelude" to a mountain of evidence waiting for you in court read this:


http://www.justanswer.com/law/748es-hello-got-demand-letter-dish-network-lawyer-certified.html

Now while I'm not an attorney THIS gentleman IS one:


They know that it will cost them $5K to hire a federal law licensed attorney to defend the actions in court, so they offer a settlement to the person knowing that it is cheaper to settle and make it go away rather than fight and try to prove that they were buying codes for some other reason than descrambling Dish programming.


It absolutely is a scare tactic to force people to settle. But Dish has gotten several law firms to agree to pursue these cases for a cut of what they get. The firms have standard templates that they have where they just fill in the defendant's name and info and then file it. So it is not really much work for them to do so. They also make the settlement offers for an amount that is typically less than what it will cost to hire an attorney to defend, even if the person is innocent.

My final post on the matter....

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

OK my final answer than I'm putting this dead horse to bed. I'm not on here to argue my opinions I've made it very clear where I stand on this matter and won't continue to go back and forth while you try to sway me. Sorry I have more pressing things to do. No offense meant but its obvious you are not changing your opinion on this nor will I.

So ONE last time: The erroneous, miscateborizing, and misrepresentation come into play with the section of the DMCA they are citing. This "demand letter" is nothing more than a cookie cutter form sent out to thousands of defendants in the hops of getting them to pay up. It just so happens in this case it concerns something (for the final time) they cannot prove. There is no way in hell they can reasonably prove that you actually connected to that pay server. Any circumstantial evidence can be explained away if you are good enough and know what you are talking about. You simply offer up a refute to the allegations and the judge decides who trumps who.


That's what demands are. But here they have demonstrated they will take you to court. They might have a problem if they didn't with someone trying to allege all they wanted to do was trick you into paying with a demand letter when they had no intention of filling in court.

They don't have to prove what you think they do. That is my opinion. I base my opinion on case law and what the burden of proof is for Civil litigation. We have seen so many try to explain away and they have all failed. I think you think its very easy but people who have been through this will tell you different.



Now think about this for a minute. The ONLY and I mean the ONLY 100% (again FORGET about this b.s circumstantial evidence) way to prove you were connected to the NFPS or Rocket server is to get ISP logs. So lets consider that for a second if they DID get ISP logs than explain why in the hell they would not have shut down that server? I'll tell you why its because they do not have any ISP records of you connecting to anything. Those are the only ISP records that would be of any benefit in this. If you didn't flap your gums and post "Good fight last night" or "Thanks for the porn" or anything else stupid than they have minimal evidence against you. If you think they have more than post back with it and I"ll be glad to go over it with you.

If you still are adamant this demand letter is a "prelude" to a mountain of evidence waiting for you in court read this:


http://www.justanswer.com/law/748es-hello-got-demand-letter-dish-network-lawyer-certified.html

Now while I'm not an attorney THIS gentleman IS one:





My final post on the matter....



You saw evidence they had for the first time just yesterday when Alex posted those files. The fact is you simply don't know what they have or can get. I just have seen this type of stuff for the last 12 years how they can't win, they can't prove this or that. I just look at the case law and results and they simply they can and do win. It is sad but its reality.



They are allowed to scare you. I read what that online lawyer said and he basically talks about settling and the costs to defend yourself with similar comments that have been posted here. Nothing he said supports any fraudulent misrepresentations in the demand letter.




GS2

[sodusme]

Its all good I understand where you're coming from and I definitely respect your opinion. I know you have been in this game a long time. <br />
<br />
I can't help but notice though that the online attorney...

[surfinisfun]

Wufman's health is ailing I been told and there a lot of generous people on these forums that might contribute to his mounting hospital bills. I'm not telling anyone to use that but if I was on a jury I might be inclined to believe that. Oh and if he's not sick than you were simply taken by a scam artist who you thought was ill. Dig up the posts and take screenshots of them where he is posting about his "failing" health.

With all due respect sod, it looks like the folks that received letters and e-mails in regards to everyone's rat friend wuf are sunk. He rolled on everything as far as his customers info.

But, i would say you have touched on something regarding his health, maybe not then but.....

Good luck wuf.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

For the demand letters to amount to extortion there has to be some threat of consequence other than pursuing a lawsuit.


For example - We are going to take you to court plus tell your wife about your girlfriend if you don't meet our demands.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

DMCA? What about ECPA? lol
19082
19083
19084
19085

Just a sample of what you will have to deal with.


The G-man.pdf file looks like an Anton Pillar order against G-Man in Ontario, Canada. The Anton pillar order is part of a lawsuit filled against him.


The order included the search of a dumpster, cars, self storage place plus their residential premises ( 2 ). They are ordered to turn everything over including their sales records of IKS subscriptions, IKS server & web site information.


Not good. This is the kind of thing that could lead to pursuit of users or not down the road.



GS2

[sodusme]

With all due respect sod, it looks like the folks that received letters and e-mails in regards to everyone's rat friend wuf are sunk. He rolled on everything as far as his customers info.

But, i would say you have touched on something regarding his health, maybe not then but.....

Good luck wuf.

Well I won't be so vain as to think they are reading these forums and the stuff we all post but I find it quite odd that they have him include a statement basically saying "these codes were used for the sole purpose of yada, yada, yada". Very cleverly worded on his part and as someone else said its NOT his writing. Not to slam on the guy but I doubt he thinks with that clear of a mind to protect DN/Nagra with such vigorous wording in his statement. Its almost laughable.

By "him" saying they were used for the sole purpose that kind of strikes down any defense. But if he was indeed posting on these forums like VG did about his "ailing" health that might be a possible defense. Now again you need to use your head on a defense. If you were on here posting "Good fight" or "Nice porn" or something else your goose is cooked. You need to step back and ask yourself "What else could they have on me" and you need to have a clear, precise answer for it. Not something that is way out in left field but something that might be believable.

As GS2 says there isn't much "evidence" needed in a civil suit (51% by either party) and I think we are forgetting that that goes both ways. Its not much that you need either to sway a judge or jury. I will tell you this anyone that takes this to court for the love of God go with a jury. The defense attorney explained my case to me this way "Would you rather have 12 people deciding your fate or just 1"? I had opted for a jury trial and we were just about to start picking jurors when I accepted a plea. ;)

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Well I won't be so vain as to think they are reading these forums and the stuff we all post but I find it quite odd that they have him include a statement basically saying "these codes were used for the sole purpose of yada, yada, yada". Very cleverly worded on his part and as someone else said its NOT his writing. Not to slam on the guy but I doubt he thinks with that clear of a mind to protect DN/Nagra with such vigorous wording in his statement. Its almost laughable.

By "him" saying they were used for the sole purpose that kind of strikes down any defense. But if he was indeed posting on these forums like VG did about his "ailing" health that might be a possible defense. Now again you need to use your head on a defense. If you were on here posting "Good fight" or "Nice porn" or something else your goose is cooked. You need to step back and ask yourself "What else could they have on me" and you need to have a clear, precise answer for it. Not something that is way out in left field but something that might be believable.

As GS2 says there isn't much "evidence" needed in a civil suit (51% by either party) and I think we are forgetting that that goes both ways. Its not much that you need either to sway a judge or jury. I will tell you this anyone that takes this to court for the love of God go with a jury. The defense attorney explained my case to me this way "Would you rather have 12 people deciding your fate or just 1"? I had opted for a jury trial and we were just about to start picking jurors when I accepted a plea. ;)


He cooperated so he gave them what they wanted. They wanted him to support want they say by saying it himself. No doubt they held his hand in writing his depo. He could have gone through several drafts on his depo before they said this works.


However what other reason could there be for the use of the codes. ? Before when it was devices you bought you could try to argue some other use depending on what device it was.




GS2

[ChillyWilly]

IMHO wuf's declaration was written by one of the Hagen lawyers. Of course they would have used wuf's deposition as a basis for this. And because it is factual, wuf would have no problem signing it

[surfinisfun]

IMHO wuf's declaration was written by one of the Hagen lawyers. Of course they would have used wuf's deposition as a basis for this. And because it is factual, wuf would have no problem signing it

No, i think he is actually a lawyer that's been in hiding, waiting to write that.lol

[MaFiA]

What I dont understand is why someone would keep all the records that can be used for evidence..its not like it can be written off lol.. stick certain things on a USB stick so it u can be nooked later :yeaah:

[sodusme]

What I dont understand is why someone would keep all the records that can be used for evidence..its not like it can be written off lol.. stick certain things on a USB stick so it u can be nooked later :yeaah:

LOL tax write off now that is funny.

Exactly, there are a number of ways he could have "secured" these documents if he was compelled to keep records.

[kyzursozay]

wonder if any old BUD C-banders that remember, possibly used C.E. back in the day before dn got up & running (as he liked to point out in commercial with prominent photo of old pickup towing BUD on a trailer) & received demand letter have thought of using the novel defense of ...... since he sold/provided unauthorized access to encrypted programming before he established a personal networth of $14Bil.. I assumed he was onboard/OK with it. LOL

[Hannibalector]

For the demand letters to amount to extortion there has to be some threat of consequence other than pursuing a lawsuit.


For example - We are going to take you to court plus tell your wife about your girlfriend if you don't meet our demands.



GS2

what ? ..I mean huh ....lol
so in your opinion demanding 3,500 or 5,000 or 10,000 is not a threat ? sounds like one to me

[Hannibalector]

wonder if any old BUD C-banders that remember, possibly used C.E. back in the day before dn got up & running (as he liked to point out in commercial with prominent photo of old pickup towing BUD on a trailer) & received demand letter have thought of using the novel defense of ...... since he sold/provided unauthorized access to encrypted programming before he established a personal networth of $14Bil.. I assumed he was onboard/OK with it. LOL

ahh mr Ergan,

dont do as I do but do as I say

[1boxman]

:tehe::rotflmao:

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

what ? ..I mean huh ....lol
so in your opinion demanding 3,500 or 5,000 or 10,000 is not a threat ? sounds like one to me


Did you purposely leave off in bold - "other than pursuing a lawsuit"



or the demand letters to amount to extortion there has to be some threat of consequence other than pursuing a lawsuit.



It a legal acceptable demand letter. Call it a "legal" threat prescribed in law. Its a legal procedure and in some locations and in some laws it is required to be done.


If you go to small claims courts online they sometimes give you example on how to write one. From Quebec Government web site.



hxxp://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/creance-a.htm#before



before suing: formal notice

Before you submit your case to the Small Claims Division, you should give the person you want to sue formal notice.

Formal notice is generally given in the form of a demand letter, sent to the person you want to sue (the defendant) using a method that provides proof of receipt.

The demand letter can be sent by registered mail, since a confirmation of delivery will be provided.

A demand letter can also be served by a bailiff, who will provide a document stating when and to whom the letter was delivered. This document can then be used to prove that the demand letter was, in fact, delivered. Before asking a bailiff to serve a demand letter, it is important to check the cost of the service, since this can depend on the distance involved.


The formal notice must contain

the date, and the recipient’s name and address;
the heading “without prejudice”, which protects you in terms of the statements you make in the letter;
the words “formal notice” in the body of the letter, to ensure that the recipient is aware of its importance;
a clear explanation of your demand, and the reasons for it;
a time limit for the defendant to respond to your demand; in general, a period of 10 days is considered reasonable;
your signature and contact information.

It is important to keep a copy of the demand letter and document proving that it was delivered, in order to be able to prove that the demand letter was received by the intended recipient.

In some cases, you are legally required to give formal notice. For more information, contact the clerk of the Small Claims Division.

Example of a formal notice


Place and date

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Name and address of the person sued

Sir/Madam:

I am writing to inform you that I am claiming the sum of $XX from you for the following reasons:

...

This letter constitutes formal notice to pay me the sum of $XX within ten days. Otherwise, I may take legal action against you immediately and without further notice.

Please act accordingly.

Signature
Your address and telephone number




GS2