his liver is in better shape than mine but not by much...lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Just_angel
Printable View
his liver is in better shape than mine but not by much...lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Just_angel
Condor, Bolivia, Titicaca, El frito bandido, Who am I????????????...http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h5...ilies/lmao.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
Thanks for sharing Baby !!! LMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condor
l know !!! l know !!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by stilled
The proof of burden is by the preponderance of the evidence.
GS2
I think he's eluding to the same thing I am saying in that you are being sued for "using codes" not "using a receiver". I also know what you are saying in that their "preponderance" of the evidence has to tie those two together but IMO, and I've said it time and time and time again its a long stretch from buying some codes to actually tuning a receiver to a DN station and pirating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
They allege you used a receiver. I think your missing that people just don't spend money on codes that have one purpose only and that is to access the signals unlawfully. I don't see a long stretch with preponderance of evidence but that is my opinion only.
Quote:
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.
GS2
I see the web lawyers are still at it.....lol
IMHO, judges rely on a lot of common sense, demeanor of the witnesses, or simply put, what does or doesn't make sense.
to that end, most judges aren't going to believe someone made a donation to "achieve world peace", "save the whales", "save the planet" or whatever other explanation is offered.............but jmo
OK but here is my take on it and why its such a stretch: They send out a demand letter demanding payment for wrongdoing from purchasing these codes. Now if you read that demand letter (and we all have) point out to me where in the demand letter they state anything about using a receiver? Now I've already taken the liberty of reviewing it for the 100th time and I can save you the trouble. There is absolutely NO mention of using a receiver in that demand letter or a dongle. Now I know you will say its merely a "peace offering" and they don't have to mention it in the letter, but here's the deal they are demanding payment under the alleged use of a "code" and "for your reference" as they say in the letter the only information they list is the NFPS passcode, DES key, email, and ID. Now then when they file the lawsuit they write up this big thing about how you used a receiver and how the receiver works and how you used a dongle and how the dongle works and all this other, for lack of a better word, b.s. Now my problem with this whole situation is where is the investigatory work pointing to the use of a receiver? Where is the evidence of use of a dongle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
This whole situation is like the cops busting someone for buying some pot (yes I realize this scenario is criminal and the codes are civil its merely an example). Then they bring charges against the individual for possession of drug paraphernalia also. When there is no way possible way to tell if you bought that pot for your own personal use or someone else or whatever other excuse you could come up with. It would be like the cops writing up charges stating "....purchased pot which allowed the individual to smoke it in a bong". "A bong consists of a cylindrical tube made of....". You get my point here I'm sure? Just as there would be no way to "prove" other then just guessing or hypothesising that a person who purchased pot smoked it in a bong, there would be no way of "proving" that an individual who purchased a NFPS code actually used that code. The courts can call it a preponderance of the evidence all they want but its really a crock of sh*t IMO.
sod, quit giving people poor advice, nobody is going to walk into a court room and beat DN lawyers on their own, that is just not going to happen, no way no how,Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
i would just love to see you walk into a court room against DN high payed lawyers and say "im sorry your honor, but i dont even own an fta receiver, and have never used one",
are you kidding? the judge would laugh at you, and be little you, in front of everybody,
the only good advice is to seek professional legal advice, which is not offered on this forum,
Its an opinion not advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave Digger
You can keep preaching this pay, pay, pay and I'll keep preaching that DN attorneys are NOT Gods. They are simple attorneys nothing more. I'm not going anywhere, I'm not changing my opinion, and I'm not going to "stop posting" anything. I am entitled to my opinion in this thread just as much as you.
So until which time your name is on the registrar or you admin the board you can kindly shut the hell up and not worry about what I'm posting!!!!!
Ok sod. Easy on the language and the tone. Thanks.
While I respect your say on the site its a two way street IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anubis
If this guy is going to be allowed to conduct himself in this manner and constantly talk down to me and try to belittle (proper spelling btw Grave Digger) me then I'll assume its a "free for all". Like I said no disrespect meant against you or the site but I won't continue being talked to like a child by this guy. So either it gets handled here and now or I'll deal with it. ;)
I understand your point sod but as you know taking stuff out in public using foul language does contravene site rules. At least take it to pm before the latter.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
play nice in the sandbox....please tone it down alittle
Thanks :liang: