DN $3500 demand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harescrambleracer

For starters one lawyer stopped this process by showing the ones taking you to court doesn't have the grounds to sue for copyright because only the ones that own the copyright can do that which would be only the ones that made the program or movie,,

---

I would like to see you post a reference on this case.

DN's lawsuits don't simply name one alleged violation of law, but rather several. As an example, it is a violation of the DMCA to intercept an encrypted transmission W/O permission from the originating source, and that specific legal code makes no mention whatsoever of copyright infringement, which is addressed in other sections of the act.

And AFA serving a defendant; long time ago I needed to eliminate a phony TD that was on a foreclosed house that I had purchased (it was superior to the foreclosing TD). Instead of serving them directly, my lawyer had notice of summons to court and the complaint published for four consecutive weeks (the statute for this in my state) in a relatively obscure legal newspaper.
When no response to the court came forth, we proceeded to obtain a default judgment.

DN's lawyers could serve by publication in the defendants hometown newspaper, if they couldn't get him/her served directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

I would like to see you post a reference on this case.

DN's lawsuits don't simply name one alleged violation of law, but rather several. As an example, it is a violation of the DMCA to intercept an encrypted transmission W/O permission from the originating source, and that specific legal code makes no mention whatsoever of copyright infringement, which is addressed in other sections of the act.

And AFA serving a defendant; long time ago I needed to eliminate a phony TD that was on a foreclosed house that I had purchased (it was superior to the foreclosing TD). Instead of serving them directly, my lawyer had notice of summons to court and the complaint published for four consecutive weeks (the statute for this in my state) in a relatively obscure legal newspaper.
When no response to the court came forth, we proceeded to obtain a default judgment.

DN's lawyers could serve by publication in the defendants hometown newspaper, if they couldn't get him/her served directly.

---

I'm assuming by 'hometown' you mean the town he currently lives in? He doesn't live in the same town he grew up in which is the town his parents live in still I'm assuming. So that won't work for DN because obviously they don't know what town he lives in or they would have served him in his correct town and at the correct address already. ;)

They can put it in the paper where he grew up all they want....but if that is not a paper he would be able to subscribe to and/or read....it will do little good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodusme

I'm assuming by 'hometown' you mean the town he currently lives in? He doesn't live in the same town he grew up in which is the town his parents live in still I'm assuming. So that won't work for DN because obviously they don't know what town he lives in or they would have served him in his correct town and at the correct address already. ;)

They can put it in the paper where he grew up all they want....but if that is not a paper he would be able to subscribe to and/or read....it will do little good.

---

I believe all the requirement says is that it has to be a newspaper of general circulation. Publishing the notice in the paper serving the area of the address where they believe the action took place, would most likely satisfy the court. Of course they would testify that they tried to do a personal service the required number of times, and the defendant would not answer the door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

I believe all the requirement says is that it has to be a newspaper of general circulation. Publishing the notice in the paper serving the area of the address where they believe the action took place, would most likely satisfy the court. Of course they would testify that they tried to do a personal service the required number of times, and the defendant would not answer the door.

---

I'm not sure that would float if he showed (and he can) that he legally resides in another city where his is likely to not see the newspaper (if that is the case unless the paper is in syndication in both cities). You have to make an attempt to process serve in a legitimate way. His address change should be a matter of public record so somebody is obviously not doing their homework. The minute they said "We attempted process service at XYZ address and the defendant did not answer the door"....all he has to do is show that he doesn't live at that address and that will not look favorably on the plaintiff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodusme

I'm not sure that would float if he showed (and he can) that he legally resides in another city where his is likely to not see the newspaper (if that is the case unless the paper is in syndication in both cities). You have to make an attempt to process serve in a legitimate way. His address change should be a matter of public record so somebody is obviously not doing their homework. The minute they said "We attempted process service at XYZ address and the defendant did not answer the door"....all he has to do is show that he doesn't live at that address and that will not look favorably on the plaintiff.

---

Perfect (for them), becuz how's he gonna show this evidence unless he appears in court? And that is the purpose of the summons, is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Perfect (for them), becuz how's he gonna show this evidence unless he appears in court? And that is the purpose of the summons, is it not?

---

but I thought DN had no leg to stand on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Perfect (for them), becuz how's he gonna show this evidence unless he appears in court? And that is the purpose of the summons, is it not?

---

Not voluntarily he doesn't....since he wasn't served 'properly'. Once he shows up (after being sued I suppose) if it looks like to the judge that DN was playing games and not attempting to serve him properly that won't look good for their case is what I'm saying.

Yes in a round about way they have gotten him into court....but which is best:

Get the defendant into court the proper way?
Get the defendant into court by proxy by playing games with the process service and p!ssing the judge off in the mean time?

I think I'd rather go the first route but that's just me. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

but I thought DN had no leg to stand on?

---

I personally have never posted anything definitive in that regard. Only suggested defenses that may or may not fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodusme

Not voluntarily he doesn't....since he wasn't served 'properly'. Once he shows up (after being sued I suppose) if it looks like to the judge that DN was playing games and not attempting to serve him properly that won't look good for their case is what I'm saying.

Yes in a round about way they have gotten him into court....but which is best:

Get the defendant into court the proper way?
Get the defendant into court by proxy by playing games with the process service and p!ssing the judge off in the mean time?

I think I'd rather go the first route but that's just me. ;)

---

Ever been in court, SOD? As long as the defendant is there, the judge doesn't give a sh*t what method brought him in.
And DN's lawyers, as "officers of the court", would be reasonably expected to have done their process service according to the letter of the law. I doubt that would be any issue whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

I personally have never posted anything definitive in that regard. Only suggested defenses that may or may not fly.


Ever been in court, SOD? As long as the defendant is there, the judge doesn't give a sh*t what method brought him in.
And DN's lawyers, as "officers of the court", would be reasonably expected to have done their process service according to the letter of the law. I doubt that would be any issue whatsoever.

---

I've been in court....but never from a 'summons' no.

But in reading around it appears as though there is 'proper' and 'improper' service. As one anonymous poster stated:

Quote:

---

The fact that improper service fortuitously leads to actual notice doesn't make the improper service proper. The propriety of service cannot turn on the fact that the defendant happens to have a good enough relationship with an ex-spouse that the ex forwarded the papers.

---

Which is the point I'm making....just because you wound up in court....doesn't make it 'right'.

From MFN Case

Quote:

---

On January 27, 2012, as authorized by the Court (Dkt. No. 13 at 5:5-18), Plaintiffs served
their Original Complaint and summons on Defendants by way of substituted service via email and
website publication on the publicly available website located at

Code:

---

www.dishnetworkservingnotice.com/myfreeneeds

---

. Since it has been over 21 days since service,
and since Defendants have not filed any responsive pleadings or Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) motions,
leave is necessary prior to DISH Network filing an amended pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

---

Here is the referenced order.

Attachment 18085

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

I personally have never posted anything definitive in that regard. Only suggested defenses that may or may not fly.


Ever been in court, SOD? As long as the defendant is there, the judge doesn't give a sh*t what method brought him in.
And DN's lawyers, as "officers of the court", would be reasonably expected to have done their process service according to the letter of the law. I doubt that would be any issue whatsoever.

---

some would just move on,,,afterall,
dont DN's legal team have enough on that cherry tree to pick from,, ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

From MFN Case



Here is the referenced order.

Attachment 18085

---

owner of a website is diff than that of
an enduser, no??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftaalltheway

owner of a website is diff than that of
an enduser, no??

---

Not when it comes to being served under the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

Not when it comes to being served under the law.

---

the dickens you say?? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodusme

I've been in court....but never from a 'summons' no.

But in reading around it appears as though there is 'proper' and 'improper' service. As one anonymous poster stated:



Which is the point I'm making....just because you wound up in court....doesn't make it 'right'.

---

Do lawyers do sneaky things? As long as they get the defendant into the courtroom, doesn't really matter to the bench if they have been morally virtuous in the method they used.
I recall sometime in the past that one of the providers -I think it was Dave- offered some kind of prize, and were able to snare pirate user ID's by that method, in order to then proceed with lawsuits. Hardly moral, but financially effective.