Sod old boy, all of your examples are criminal court fodder. I don't think the same standards would be held to in civil...
Printable View
Sod old boy, all of your examples are criminal court fodder. I don't think the same standards would be held to in civil...
Just an example fifties, just an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Evidently you don't need real strong 'evidence' as they don't have real strong evidence. I know that in a civil case you have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence or in other words 51% to 49%. But yeah I was simply comparing that they (meaning DN/Nagra) are going on 'intent' because they have no ironclad evidence that theft actually occurred. So they have to be drawing the conclusion that your 'intent' was to use these codes to steal television since they cannot actually prove that you stole it. They can only surmise by the meager evidence they have compiled.
Are you guys saying that the glove may not fit..LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.
GS2
We all know women always lie about their age.. She was 30 but said she was 13...LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
Unless of course you had changed your mind upon meeting the 'girl'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
So let me ask you if someone thought of meeting a 13 yo girl on the 'net then that is a crime then I assume? Forget that they may or may not have acted on it but lets just say it crossed their mind so they should be convicted then if their 'intent' was to meet a 13 yo? My contention is if the actual crime (the meeting of a real, live, honest to goodness 13 yo with the intent of having sex) never manifested....then where is the crime? The same holds true here....where is the actual crime? Show me proof of the crime and not just some codes, emails, paypal records. Now please don't read into this and think I am supporting this type of behavior I'm merely using it as an example. The same would apply if you meet an undercover agent to buy drugs and there are no real, live, honest to goodness drugs in the equation....then where is the crime?
At any case it was just an example of how many, many crimes in this country are now decided on 'intent' and wrongfully so IMO. These court cases of copyright infringement are no different. At this point they can only go on what they thought you were going to do with these codes as they have no proof you actually used them.
But I am dyslexic. I thought she was 31.
Quote:
I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.
GS2
bla bla bla
if you don't think you're screwed you're an idiot
enjoy spending 5 k to fight less...duh
LMAO Me thinks a certain service/site are getting smacked pretty hard right now. Courts, ECM's like they know all their subs, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
Meeting a 13 old by itself is not a crime but under your description of meeting a 13 year old and it turned out to be an under cover would make one think there was some not very good intent going on. Under cover like that usually mean it was something going on that was not very kosher. It usually means the under cover is trying to catch you at doing something so you could be charged with a crime. It might seem like its not fair but if done right it is acceptable. You can legally be caught that way.
Now not saying you would not have defenses as you probably would and than a judge or jury will decide.
GS2
Yes that is all I'm trying to make a point on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
Its getting where true 'justice' doesn't exist anymore in this country. It boils down to which attorney(s) can lie the best. There is no sense of 'innocent until proven guilty' anymore. Not that there ever was but its gotten worse, much worse. One thing though you said that concerns me and I know that it is true as I've been caught up in it. You mention 'trying to catch you at doing something so you could be charged with a crime'....since when did that become crime fighting in America? Don't we all do something that we 'could' be caught at....but its not really a crime per se....until you are actually caught at it. This is what my whole argument is over. There is no 'trying to catch'....either you are caught committing a crime OR you are not. LEA shouldn't be allowed to operate this way. Its B.S. IMO.
I know I would definitely take my chances with a jury though instead of a judge. That way you have a better chance instead of trying to convince only one person.
Take a look at this motion, and the response to it. The motion to dismiss brings a lot of points made here in this thread. The case was voluntarily dismissed, so a ruling on the dismissal was never made.
Attachment 17950
Attachment 17951
Attachment 17952
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
Sometimes they have a complaint against someone and need more evidence. Using under cover in that situation is fighting crime in America. Sometimes its abused and defendant's lawyer will try to have that evidence thrown out.
GS2
Nice maybe some attorney is finally reading what we have been saying here.Quote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds
This guy makes some valid points. The best one I think is that DN/Echostar aren't even authorized on behalf of Nagra to bring suit based on copyright infringement. They would have to prove that they represent and have been charged with the task of such to have it stand up in court I would think. Nagra is its own entity as he says so why aren't they bringing suit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds
Now we can only speculate as to which way it would have gone because of the settlement. Without having any knowledge of the details of settlement that makes it hard to determine which party moved more for a settlement and wanted to stop the proceedings from progressing to rulings on the motion to dismiss.
GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
Personally think that was the weakest argument brought forth to dismiss that they do not qualify under the DMCA to sue. We will never know but only in opinion I would see that going in plaintiff's favor.
GS2
Notice where one thing cited in the motion was claiming the plaintiffs submitted a "Shotgun" pleading. I stumbled across another DA case in Florida Fed court where the judge ruled it was indeed a "shotgun" pleading.
Attachment 17954
I never took you for a poet...nice! BTW, you remind me of another guy that was on a number of forums for years. He called himself "Rotten". Any relation? I kinda miss that little prick.Quote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
Nice first post! Welcome to Satfix whoever you are!Quote:
Originally Posted by garysam
So what exactly got 'dismissed'? The case against him got dismissed totally....or the 'motion for dismissal' got dismissed. LOL
I have trouble understanding all this legal mumbo jumbo.
And here I thought you were our resident legal council;Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
boy are we in trouble!
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds
The problem there is the court ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. They did. Eventually the defendant agreed to a Judgement of $10,000 and agreed to a permanent injunction.
It would be interesting to see the difference between the first complaint that was thrown out to the amended complaint that was not thrown out.
GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
They filled a complaint. Defense made a motion to dismiss the complaint due to finding it was a shotgun pleading. The court agreed with the motion and ordered the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. They did that was not considered a shotgun pleading. The defendant eventually lost.
Quote:
In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. No. 1), filed on August 17, 2011, is STRICKEN.
2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order
on or before September 6, 2011. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action.
GS2
I'm actually the resident anonymity and networking guy. That is where my expertise lies. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
United States IKS End User Civil Cases and Status
Dark Angel Endusers US Cases.
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. WILLIAMS Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Steele Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to Seize Vehicles
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Powell Default Judgment $10,000.00
NagraStar LLC et al v. Harrell Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Saunder Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Wineteer Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dubar Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hardison Summary Judgement $10,000 Plus $20,315 costs.
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Lohnes Dismissed With Out Prejudice
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Everette Default Judgment $10,000.00
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. ROUNDS Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. SWEETING Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Jeffrey Parsons Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Daniel Arriola Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1,200 Costs.
DISH Network LLC et al v. Goncalves Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. THOMAS Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L C. et al v. Khan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried File Bankruptcy,court hit him another $6,051 in costs.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Harris Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Henry Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Layer Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Dummer Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Fowler Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Karapet Menemshyan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1200 in Costs.
Dish Network LLC et al v. Ken Moorhead Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Santa Monica Systems Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Arafat Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. James Terrazas Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Lopez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rhoades Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Frederick Dismissed With Out Prejudice
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Pruneda Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Sanchez Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. John Mitchell Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Main Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Vasquez Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK LLC et al v. PIPPIN Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to collect.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dames Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Forbes Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Goss Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Vega Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rana Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Mondry Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Diallo Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Alafa Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Berger Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Tackie Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Friedman Default Judgment $10,000.00
Network LLC et al v. Scott Default Judgment after fighting for a while. $10,000 + $15,000 Costs
Dish Network LLC et al v. Smith Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Moran Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Suarez Default Judgment $0 Judge Crossed out Damages, considered injunction adequate.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Ventura Voluntary Dismissal
Dish Network LLC v. DelVecchio Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried to seize property
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Lucas Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Norris Default Judgment Judge adjusted to $1500.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hamilton Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Schaefer Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perry (Contested) Summary Judgment 10K + 15K Costs and attorney fees.
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Borden Settled Confidential Amount Claimed 5th
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Nguyen Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Ashworth Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Wiley Motion for Default Judgment filed 2-4-2013, not granted yet.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Martin Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. JONES Default Judgment $10,000.00 PI Denied.
EchoStar Technologies LLC et al v. Kimbrough Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Venning Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dalmer Default Judgment $10,000.00
Wufman End user cases
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Magi Fighting, Scheduling Conference Report Due By 4-29-2013.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Keown Clerks Entry of Default
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. FAROOQUI Clerks Entry of Default
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Haubner Hiding From Being Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Harrison Summons Issued, Nothing Since 1-30-2013
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Gonzalez Clerks Entry of Default
DISH Network LLC et al v. Aurora Herrera Summons Issued 1-29-2012
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Yelverton Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Williamson Answered Complaint 2-29-2012
YIKES! first post calling out muff? not a good ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by garysam
an "intent" usually includes other "relevent" evidence,,,say one is caughtQuote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
with 3 lbs of weed, even in your premises, it is obvious "that" amount
is NOT for personal use,,,the prosecutor will obviously contend you had
intended to sell it, one day...just one example
in my view, and agree with most of what you posted about these letetrs
and claim by plaintifs, there should be more than "intent" in THESE cases
it does appear, to me as well, that the courts are favoring all claims in
plaintifs' favour only b/c not many will file a response, thinking they are
dead in the water, a water filled with mud,,,seams that just b/c their lawers
are officials of the court that they are deemed to be filing legit claims,,,
fact is, any claim in civil, are just as contentious as the next,,,if a defendant
doesnt see the smallest detail that can be argued to be frivilous, he/she
will lose ,,it takes good detailed people to weed out the frivilous aspect(s) of a claim
such as is the case in these claims,,,i said it be4,,,if they have NOTHING else than "intent, in THESE cases?
and prevail? then not only is there something VERY wrong with the system BUT one can
bet their bottomn dollars, judges can be bought
Happy Easter!
Very true....the only thing I would argue is the very possession of 'weed' is illegal in of itself. Which constitutes a crime whether its for personal use or selling.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftaalltheway
These codes like I have said before are simply codes. The codes mean nothing and of themselves are not illegal to posses. Until which time that changes I still say DN/Nagra has no case or at least they shouldn't have a case. They are a bull in a china shop when it comes to these cases and prey on the fact that the 'little' guy won't fight back.
Its a far stretch from buying some codes to pirating television on a Saturday night with a big bowl of popcorn in front of you in a home in suburbia U.S.A. They can say all they want about "Your intent was to do this" or "Your intent was to do that"....but in the long run they have nothing.
In fact my line of questioning would go something like this....I would pick out a large television event that transpired during the time frame that the piracy was alleged to have taken place. Maybe a UFC event. I would ask Hagan, Noll and Boyle if it was possible that John Doe was able to watch this UFC match provided the technology from this IKS setup? When they said YES which they naturally would. I would then ask them "Ok so you have irrefutable evidence that John Doe did in fact watch this UFC match on the date of XYZ correct"? Of course they would have none and that would be the end of that line of questioning.
ya shouldnt be scared of internet tough guys no matter of amount of posts on either side!muffin lmao!Quote:
Originally Posted by smallyjohnson
Medicinal weed is not illegal in certain states.. MAybe there is a need for medicinal codes..ROFLMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
legal in canada too...check it outQuote:
Originally Posted by JCO
CAnada is way more advanced than the states. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds
(collectively, "DISH Network"), and Defendent Frederick Dames respectfully notify the Court of the parties settement of this action
DISH Network voluntarily dismisses this action against the Defendent
the one word in this that is surprising is "settlement" and what can or can't be inferred by it
I am confused, who can explain why?
Well you could be like me and not be wrapped real tight in general and have issues. Seems I hit my head a few times as a child and I'm sure that didn't help much. lol Of course there is alcohol and or hard drugs that can contribute to one's confusion. Now some of them dag gum big words will tear me out the frame. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfsUC7ge550
I just want to know who went to court and how they lost their case.
I don't see anywhere that they lost, in fact it looks more like nagra/dish lost to me,JMO,lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by rainman2
I would still like to hear of anyone meaning a IKS subscriber like let's say you or me or Tom, or Jerry. I would like to know how they defended themselves from the man. I am sure that info would help a lot of people. Can somebody in this forum step up and maybe give us a clue on how you did it. Maybe he, or she will .
anybody who has gone to court most likely has made an agreement that they will not have anything to do with FTA for as long as they live....which would include posting on these forums....Quote:
Originally Posted by rainman2
as for people defending themselves....this is how well they did....
here is what happens when you stick your head in the sand and ignore legal documentation.....
United States IKS End User Civil Cases and Status
Dark Angel Endusers US Cases.
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. WILLIAMS Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Steele Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to Seize Vehicles
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Powell Default Judgment $10,000.00
NagraStar LLC et al v. Harrell Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Saunder Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Wineteer Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dubar Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hardison Summary Judgement $10,000 Plus $20,315 costs.
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Lohnes Dismissed With Out Prejudice
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Everette Default Judgment $10,000.00
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. ROUNDS Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. SWEETING Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Jeffrey Parsons Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Daniel Arriola Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1,200 Costs.
DISH Network LLC et al v. Goncalves Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. THOMAS Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L C. et al v. Khan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried File Bankruptcy,court hit him another $6,051 in costs.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Harris Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Henry Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Layer Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Dummer Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Fowler Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Karapet Menemshyan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1200 in Costs.
Dish Network LLC et al v. Ken Moorhead Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Santa Monica Systems Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Arafat Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. James Terrazas Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Lopez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rhoades Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Frederick Dismissed With Out Prejudice
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Pruneda Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Sanchez Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. John Mitchell Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Main Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Vasquez Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK LLC et al v. PIPPIN Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to collect.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dames Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Forbes Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Goss Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Vega Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rana Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Mondry Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Diallo Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Alafa Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Berger Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Tackie Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Friedman Default Judgment $10,000.00
Network LLC et al v. Scott Default Judgment after fighting for a while. $10,000 + $15,000 Costs
Dish Network LLC et al v. Smith Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Moran Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Suarez Default Judgment $0 Judge Crossed out Damages, considered injunction adequate.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Ventura Voluntary Dismissal
Dish Network LLC v. DelVecchio Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried to seize property
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Lucas Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Norris Default Judgment Judge adjusted to $1500.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hamilton Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Schaefer Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perry (Contested) Summary Judgment 10K + 15K Costs and attorney fees.
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Borden Settled Confidential Amount Claimed 5th
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Nguyen Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Ashworth Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Wiley Motion for Default Judgment filed 2-4-2013, not granted yet.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Martin Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. JONES Default Judgment $10,000.00 PI Denied.
EchoStar Technologies LLC et al v. Kimbrough Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Venning Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dalmer Default Judgment $10,000.00
W*FM*N End user cases
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Magi Fighting, Scheduling Conference Report Due By 4-29-2013.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Keown Clerks Entry of Default
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. FAROOQUI Clerks Entry of Default
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Haubner Hiding From Being Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Harrison Summons Issued, Nothing Since 1-30-2013
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Gonzalez Clerks Entry of Default
DISH Network LLC et al v. Aurora Herrera Summons Issued 1-29-2012
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Yelverton Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Williamson Answered Complaint 2-29-2012
I guess a lot are up the creek. Thanks for the info. Better off paying them with their first offer. Sell your equipment to help pay the man. Netflix is starting to look better now. Guess I'll take the wife to a movie now and then.Cheaper.