Hope he had a body condom on ..
Printable View
Hope he had a body condom on ..
Just as a refresher, Copy of Dixons Demonic Letter,
Attachment 17610
Attachment 17611
LMFAO They reference the Blacklist case. WTF has that got to do with an IKS enduser :noidea:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Basically no one knows what he had or what he cooperated with. Its speculation.
Quote:
You may not agree with that, but I'm talking from experience. Some years back, I was temporarily impaneled on a municipal court jury to hear a case where a guy was suing his insurance company.
That case might have qualified for jury trial. Some cases do and some don't.
GS2
Most states allow trial by jury in civil cases, with no qualifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
Here's a reference to California law, as an example; the first paragraph establishes that;
Code:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=631-636
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
From the California state court website.
Quote:
First, you do not always have the right to a jury trial in all civil cases. But if you do have the option, there are a lot of things to think about when you decide what kind of trial to ask for.
Some types of disputes cannot be decided by a jury. These include claims for injunctive relief or declaratory relief, or questions of law instead of questions of fact
You have to read case law to see what courts define as a right to jury trial under the constitution in California.
Quote:
Article I, section 16 of the California Constitution provides, in relevant part: “Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all.” This inviolate right preserves the right that Americans had under the old common law to a jury trial in certain types of cases. (People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe (1951) 37 Cal. 2d 283, 286; Farrell v. City of Ontario (2d App. Dist. 1919) 39 Cal.App. 351, 356.) Constitutional guarantees of jury trials are not “inapplicable to all causes of action that were unrecognized at common law in 1791. The historical test we apply is flexible and may require a jury in a new cause of action, not in existence in 1791, if it involves rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law or if its nearest historical analogue is an action at common law.” (Goar v. Compania Peruana de Vapores (5th Cir. 1982) 688 F.2d 417, 427 (citations omitted).)
GS2
Hijack start...
Geez, I think I'm going to write the bar by the time this ever dies with all the info I'm learning.:thumbsup:
Sorry back to regular programming.
Hijack end.
Those types of suits require legal knowledge to adjudicate, so of course they would not be able to be determined by a jury of ones "peers".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
OTOH, a suit for $ can almost always be heard by a jury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
great points for attorneys to nulify them during jury approval procedure ..........LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
I still think you would have a better chance with a jury than a judge. However, considering that your defense lawyer(s) charge by the hour, the jury selection process alone will probably run you more than $3500.
ok call me stuppid,,nothing new there ;)
considering Wuf's codes were almost alll stolen,,, (bought mine
at beta almost yr ago and is on list of stolen even though some worked for a while at least until
nfps caught on) could'nt one argue as a defense
you bought the codes BUT they never connected to any server cuz they
were compromised??? i mean far as i know,,,the plaintif hasnt stated they have
server loggs so how would they be able to rebutt "that" ,,,
now we're back with ONLY buying a code so, is THAT enough??
to prove their claim?? maybe these defendants should check thir codes
to see if they are on this list?? food for thought
edit:for those who try defending him/herself?
suggest you try your code on the checker and if it says stolen
and deactivated??? take your webcam or digital and snap a still
photo and save,,,cuz i think it will only be avail for next 10 days
shows stolen on code checker?Quote:
Originally Posted by ftaalltheway
hahaha
here's my neighbour's friend's uncle who got it through hisQuote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
dad's mistress who used to bang, the wufman
http://phoenix.satfix.net/attachment...1&d=1361140164
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftaalltheway
So the defense would be that you bought these codes to view unauthorized signals but found out you couldn't because they were stolen and did not work. ?
I so don't think that would work too well.
GS2
nope,,, i would say i bought codes for my neighbour who told me they wereQuote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
for his FTA rec and would increase his true FTA signals to reach many
countries that would otherwise be out of reach,,,wasnt aware he had other plans
and because of his lies was removed from my xmas list,,,would it fly? never hurts
to try,,,be surprised what a judge might believe esp with a HHHot blonde luxurygirl sitting
right next to you,,, all the while winking at the judge,,, lol
edit; all kidding asideQuote:
Originally Posted by ftaalltheway
ill be damned if i would allow a co like dn dictate what i can or cant buy,,, more
importantly, if they CANT tie in the use of that code and havent entered
my premises to confiscate all the hardware that this code was SUPPOSEDLY
used with/for??? then Yessirie bob,, they would have a Fight on their hands,,,were it
me named in this Bull crap claim
also, may i suggest resellers take be proactive by realizing the ONLY reason
this claim was made??? paypal,,,purge your data, cancel your existing pp acct
jic dn prevails cuz waiting until a judgement willbe too late,,dn would act super fast
to have PP turn over allllll suspiscious accts ESP active ones,,,all peeps should NO longer
be at resellers' behest,,,force them to offer other methods...IF you cant pay
using other method?? find it,,,otherwise youre SOL,,,this is ONLY one way
to try to save this from going south
i realize this is a shot in the dark by dn with this bs claim BUT all they need is
one peep to give in or be judged and the domino effect ,,, why do you think
third party payees by fish, nfps dont include PP?? cuz dn KNOWS full well
they dont have the same reaches to overseas payees,,,as has been proven
with NO letters whatsover by txns processed by other payees,,,failure to do this
all of you are only to blame,,,
not syaing i expect dn to win but best to have
backup plan already in effect,,,all the best to all of you faced with this current
claim,,,fight it make an example of DN and make them go after the REAL thieves
the server ops,,,ask them why they didnt go after endusers in that belgium co
who were nabbed short while back where nag and his friends were involved and
of course paypal right in there with them and turning over records/files,,,
dont misunderstand,,i think going after resellers is totally different and
fair game BUT
in a round about way then turn around
and file a claim against any enduser THAT the reseller sold to?? is LAME
at best,,,THAT is what smells about all this,,,ill gotten gains is
a phrase that comes to mind
so,take PP out out of this equation and theyve got SQUAT
on endusers,,,so that filing and the letters should be fought with a different
angle ,,of course a sharp lawyer would be able to find THAT argument
anyways,,food for thought