Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78

Thread: Just received Demand Letter ......

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29
    Satfix Buxs
    703
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 26x in 12 Posts
    Items Bulldozer
Gift received at 03-16-2020, 04:03 AM from BluegrassPinkfloyd
Gift received at 03-16-2020, 04:03 AM from BluegrassCrown Royal
Gift received at 03-16-2020, 04:03 AM from BluegrassA Beer
Gift received at 03-16-2020, 04:03 AM from Bluegrass
Message: Just because...Deethe travel gnome
Gift received at 03-16-2020, 04:03 AM from BluegrassDish
Gift received at 03-16-2020, 03:52 AM from BluegrassCamaro
Gift received at 03-16-2020, 03:52 AM from BluegrassVintage car
Gift received at 03-15-2020, 10:41 PM from Bluegrass

    Default

    c and p

    AVE STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR THOSE WHO RECEIVE A LETTER, WHO IS LIKELY TO BE SUED AND WHO PROBABLY WILL NOT. DN WILL NOT FILE A LAWSUIT IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE THEY HAVE IS A CODE PURCHASE REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH DOCUMENTATION THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT PURCHASE. TO DATE THEY HAVE ONLY FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THOSE THAT DO NOT RESPOND TO THE LETTER IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. I HAVE ADDRESSED THAT AND EXPLAINED WHAT THAT EVIDENCE USUALLY IS.

    THE FOLLOWING IS A C/P EXCERPT FROM MY POST #333 IN THIS THREAD!

    RESPOND TO THE LETTER OR NOT? - OR WHO GETS SUED AND WHO DOESN'T?

    YOU ARE PROBABLY SAFE IF YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO THE LETTER IF

    THE ONLY EVIDENCE DN HAS AGAINST YOU IS THEY ARE ABLE TO PROVE WITH COPIES OF EMAILS AND PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS THAT YOU PURCHASED AN ACCESS CODE -THEY WILL NOT FILE A LAWSUIT IF THE LETTER IS IGNORED - IN THE PAST THEY HAVE NOT FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WHERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE THEY HAVE IS AN ACCESS CODE PURCHASE.

    PROBABLY A LAWSUIT IF YOU FAIL TO RESPOND TO THE LETTER

    IN THE PAST THEY HAVE ONLY FILED LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE THAT IGNORED THE LETTER IF THEY HAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ALLEGATIONS BEYOND THE FACT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PURCHASED AN ACCESS CODE. IF DN HAS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEYOND THE ACCESS CODE PURCHASE THEY DO NOT DISCLOSE IT IN THE LETTER (this additional evidence is explained below). THEY WILL FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THOSE THAT IGNORE THE LETTER IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE .

    DN only files lawsuits if they have basically a slam dunk case against the defendant. If they file a lawsuit, the defendant has already lost the case and ultimately they will obtain a judgment against the defendant in an amount around $10,000.

    WHAT SHOULD YOU DO OR NOT DO - HOW SHOULD YOU HANDLE THIS LETTER ?

    What is the additional evidence that DN may have against you that they have not disclosed in the Letter which would cause them to file a lawsuit if you fail to respond to the letter?

    The most common evidence that DN has used in the past if they file a lawsuit is

    SELF INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS.


    I WILL EXPLAIN THESE AS IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER TO PAY OR IGNORE THE LETTER.

    WHO GETS SUED IF THEY IGNORE THE LETTER

    1. IF YOU HAVE VIA PM OR EMAIL WITH YOUR RESELLER INDICATED IN ANYWAY WHATSOEVER THAT YOU HAVE UTILIZED OR ARE ATTEMPTING TO UTILIZE THE ACCESS CODE - IT IS LIKELY THAT DN HAS COPIES OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS AND THOSE STATEMENTS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS CORROBORATING EVIDENCE AND IF THE LETTER IS IGNORED THEY WILL SUE YOU AND THEY WILL WIN. BY UTILIZED OR ATTEMPT TO UTILIZE THE CODE MEANS IF YOU HAVE STATED YOU ARE UP, DOWN, ASKING ABOUT CERTAIN CHANNELS, ASKING FOR HELP TO INSTALL THE CODES OR ANYTHING THAT INDICATES YOU ARE USING OR ATTEMPTING TO USE THE SERVICE YOU NEED TO CONTEMPLATE SETTLING WITH DN AS INDICATED IN THE LETTER BECAUSE THEY WILL SUE YOU IF YOU IGNORE IT.

    2. IF YOU HAVE PROVIDED THE RESELLER VIA PM OR EMAIL WITH YOUR SCREEN NAME AND YOU HAVE POSTED IN ANY OF THE FORUMS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS INCLUDED ABOVE, ANYTHING THAT WOULD INDICATE IN YOUR POST THAT YOU ARE USING OR ATTEMPTING TO USE THE CODE BE ASSURED THAT DN HAS COPIES OF THOSE POSTS AND THAT IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ALLEGATIONS AND AGAIN YOU SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONTEMPLATE A SETTLEMENT RATHER THAN WAIT TO BE SUED.

    3. IF YOU PURCHASED MORE THAN ONE ACCESS CODE THAN THAT APPARENTLY IS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND TO BEST OF OUR UNDERSTANDING THEY WILL FILE A LAWSUIT IF THE LETTER IS IGNORED. (THIS HAS YET TO BE VERIFIED BUT WE BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE AT THIS TIME).

    WHO IS THE PAST DOES NOT GET SUED IF THEY IGNORE THE LETTER

    IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT DN HAS AGAINST YOU IS WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE LETTER e.g. COPIES OF THE EMAIL BETWEEN THE RESELLER AND YOU AND COPIES OF THE PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS AND YOU IGNORE THE LETTER, PAST HISTORY INDICATES THAT THEY WILL NOT FILE A LAWSUIT.

    IF YOU HAVE POSTED IN THE FORUMS POSTS THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT YOU ARE OR ATTEMPTING TO USE THE CODE BUT YOU HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED YOUR SCREEN NAME TO ANYONE THEN IT IS UNLIKELY THAT YOU HAVE COMPROMISED YOURSELF AND DN IS UNLIKELY TO BE ABLE TO RELATE THOSE POSTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE LETTER WHO PURCHASED THE CODE.

    IF YOU DECIDE TO IGNORE THE LETTER BE POSITIVE THAT YOU NEVER DISCLOSED YOUR SCREEN NAME TO ANYONE AND IF YOU DID, YOU NEVER POSTED IN THE FORUMS ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED IN ANYWAY WHATSOEVER THAT YOU WERE UTILIZING YOUR ACCESS CODE OR EVEN ATTEMPTING TO UTILIZE THE CODES. BE POSITIVE THAT YOU NEVER COMMUNICATED ANYTHING TO THE RESELLER INDICATING USE.


    end of c/p from post #333


    if you read paragraph 2 above under Self Incriminating Statements you will see that I have indeed stated that forum posts at this site can and have been used against end users.

    EHG
    Not my Work got this from another site C+P

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    32
    Satfix Buxs
    51
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 17x in 8 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soupkitchen View Post
    Hey Pirate & kutter, I don't mean to for you guys to argue about this......I apologize. And one page of the letter show the PP transaction but it was for a fee - nothing was discussed for what but they will ASSUME. The transaction date was early May 2012, hoping to find statute of limitations for this.......once again sorry for stirring the pot.....
    I'm not 100% on this
    For the State of Texas
    "§ 16.006. CARRIERS OF PROPERTY" and you can read more about it here;
    Code:
    http://law.justia.com/codes/texas/2005/cp/002.00.000016.00.html
    For North Carolina you can read more here:
    Code:
    http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_1/Article_5.pdf
    Look at 1-52 (4)

    If these are not applicable to you then do a Google search with the following parameters;
    <insert your state name>statute of limitations for civil suits. Then look for a paragraph or heading similar to the above statutes.

    Comparing Texas and North Carolina it appears to indicate a common time frame of 3 years.

    Hope this helps.
    Last edited by piratesrevenge; 05-19-2015 at 03:03 AM.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to piratesrevenge For This Useful Post:


  4. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    259
    Satfix Buxs
    881
    Thanks
    219
    Thanked 307x in 163 Posts

    Default

    I think you need to look at Copyright law ... it's Federal and any civil action will be filed in a Federal Court.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#507
    Chapter 5: Copyright Infringement and Remedies
    ...
    § 507. Limitations on actions7

    (a) Criminal Proceedings. — Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

    (b) Civil Actions. — No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kutter For This Useful Post:


  6. #34
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    8
    Satfix Buxs
    29
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 11x in 5 Posts

    Default

    Kutter, Since this/these are a Civil suit than my take is 3yrs for SOL. Correct if I'm wrong. Thanks..

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to soupkitchen For This Useful Post:


  8. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    259
    Satfix Buxs
    881
    Thanks
    219
    Thanked 307x in 163 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soupkitchen View Post
    Kutter, Since this/these are a Civil suit than my take is 3yrs for SOL. Correct if I'm wrong. Thanks..
    yes that's correct ...

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to kutter For This Useful Post:


  10. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    643
    Satfix Buxs
    16,330
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,451x in 505 Posts
    Items Crown RoyalHookahMonitorcolosseEnglandBigbenLady LibertyCamaro

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by piratesrevenge View Post
    It's rather simple really

    First of all (and any lawyer will tell you this) only a fool will give in to such letter without knowing the facts.

    Secondly you don't have to retain a lawyer for full services, you can retain a lawyer to communicate to the plaintiff and the lawyer can request the plaintiff provide partial disclosure PRIOR to any action getting initiated.

    While they don't have to provide such, the courts do encourage it.
    If an action is ultimately filed the court does consider if the parties conducted themselves in a fair and co-operative manner.
    In other words if the plaintiffs refuse the request it can have a detrimental effect on any judgement they could receive.
    You don't need a lawyer. HNB will provide the end user with most of what they have. You just have to ask them.

    Quote Originally Posted by soupkitchen View Post
    Hey Pirate & kutter, I don't mean to for you guys to argue about this......I apologize. And one page of the letter show the PP transaction but it was for a fee - nothing was discussed for what but they will ASSUME. The transaction date was early May 2012, hoping to find statute of limitations for this.......once again sorry for stirring the pot.....
    Quote Originally Posted by soupkitchen View Post
    Kutter, Since this/these are a Civil suit than my take is 3yrs for SOL. Correct if I'm wrong. Thanks..
    The problem is the law states 3 years from when the Plaintiff becomes aware of the infraction. Nokia turned over his records on or about 26 Nov. 2014.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alex70olds For This Useful Post:


  12. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    IN THE PAST THEY HAVE ONLY FILED LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE THAT IGNORED THE LETTER IF THEY HAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ALLEGATIONS BEYOND THE FACT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PURCHASED AN ACCESS CODE. IF DN HAS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEYOND THE ACCESS CODE PURCHASE THEY DO NOT DISCLOSE IT IN THE LETTER (this additional evidence is explained below). THEY WILL FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THOSE THAT IGNORE THE LETTER IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

    DN only files lawsuits if they have basically a slam dunk case against the defendant. If they file a lawsuit, the defendant has already lost the case and ultimately they will obtain a judgment against the defendant in an amount around $10,000.

    The above seems like speculation to me. How does one determine that previous lawsuits were only filled if they had additional evidence. ? What case(s) would you look at that demonstrate that ?




    GS2

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  14. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    643
    Satfix Buxs
    16,330
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,451x in 505 Posts
    Items Crown RoyalHookahMonitorcolosseEnglandBigbenLady LibertyCamaro

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2 View Post
    The above seems like speculation to me. How does one determine that previous lawsuits were only filled if they had additional evidence. ? What case(s) would you look at that demonstrate that ?




    GS2
    Yeah, and you really can't say they have "slam dunk" evidence 100% of the time. There are now 203 Cases and 18 that were voluntarily dismissed.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alex70olds For This Useful Post:


  16. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    259
    Satfix Buxs
    881
    Thanks
    219
    Thanked 307x in 163 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex70olds View Post
    You don't need a lawyer. HNB will provide the end user with most of what they have. You just have to ask them.





    The problem is the law states 3 years from when the Plaintiff becomes aware of the infraction. Nokia turned over his records on or about 26 Nov. 2014.
    Personally, I would seek legal advice and the only way I would consider communicating with HNB would be through a lawyer

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to kutter For This Useful Post:


  18. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    259
    Satfix Buxs
    881
    Thanks
    219
    Thanked 307x in 163 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex70olds View Post
    Yeah, and you really can't say they have "slam dunk" evidence 100% of the time. There are now 203 Cases and 18 that were voluntarily dismissed.
    It would be interesting to know why they withdrew .... any more info on those cases ?

  19. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    643
    Satfix Buxs
    16,330
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,451x in 505 Posts
    Items Crown RoyalHookahMonitorcolosseEnglandBigbenLady LibertyCamaro

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kutter View Post
    It would be interesting to know why they withdrew .... any more info on those cases ?
    Not on all of them. Some where because defendant could not be found, at least one where they confused the father with the son, but others that I can't tell why they dismissed.

    Oh I don't mean to give advice, I am not qualified to do so. I am just saying there are alternatives.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alex70olds For This Useful Post:


  21. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by piratesrevenge View Post
    It's rather simple really

    First of all (and any lawyer will tell you this) only a fool will give in to such letter without knowing the facts.

    Secondly you don't have to retain a lawyer for full services, you can retain a lawyer to communicate to the plaintiff and the lawyer can request the plaintiff provide partial disclosure PRIOR to any action getting initiated.

    While they don't have to provide such, the courts do encourage it.
    If an action is ultimately filed the court does consider if the parties conducted themselves in a fair and co-operative manner.
    In other words if the plaintiffs refuse the request it can have a detrimental effect on any judgement they could receive.

    Not sure why any plaintiff would supply anything additional to their demand letter or supply anything additional to a complaint filled. Seems rather counter productive to supply more than the demand letter. As a past and current plaintiff I would never disclose anymore to some request. Why would I want to help my defendant. Its simple comply with my demand letter or I will take legal action against you.



    GS2

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  23. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by piratesrevenge View Post
    You're right and soupkitchen did mention about a paypal transaction as well as statue of limitations. If the transaction is within those limits he's toast.
    In Canada it's simple, 2 years is the standard for ANY civil action, the US it will vary depending on the state and what limit they set.

    For argument sake he is guilty and the provider is demanding let's say $50g, by using a lawyer instead of just paying the demand, the lawyer can be used to settle at a lower amount to which they may accept.

    Is it not better to pay a substantially reduced amount of say 50% compared to the full demand at the lawyers cost of a couple thousand? I'm not saying they would accept the offer but should it go to court then being an offer to settle was presented and refused is beneficial in influencing the courts decision.

    A lawsuit filled under the Canadian Radio Communication Act which covers 90% + Sat cases in three years.



    GS2

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  25. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    643
    Satfix Buxs
    16,330
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,451x in 505 Posts
    Items Crown RoyalHookahMonitorcolosseEnglandBigbenLady LibertyCamaro

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2 View Post
    Not sure why any plaintiff would supply anything additional to their demand letter or supply anything additional to a complaint filled. Seems rather counter productive to supply more than the demand letter. As a past and current plaintiff I would never disclose anymore to some request. Why would I want to help my defendant. Its simple comply with my demand letter or I will take legal action against you.



    GS2
    Because it is much easier, quicker for plaintiffs to collect? I just know they have in the past. I am not speculating, just commenting on what they have down before. Guess it beats hiring local council to file, going through pro hac vice motions etc.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to alex70olds For This Useful Post:


  27. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex70olds View Post
    Because it is much easier, quicker for plaintiffs to collect? I just know they have in the past. I am not speculating, just commenting on what they have down before. Guess it beats hiring local council to file, going through pro hac vice motions etc.

    Guess it depends on the case & circumstances and would it help. In my own plaintiff cases never got such a request from the defendants but they knew or ought to have known what I had for evidence.


    I did blindside one defendant with some evidence I obtained but just obtained before trial and in no way was I going to let that out but maybe at the very beginning of a case like some end user lawsuits where the parties don't really know each other sharing could work to each other's benefit.



    GS2

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •