Letter now Court case

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Courts can use circumstantial evidence without direct evidence so it would be up to a court to determine if the circumstantial evidence was strong enough without having actually prove the use.

Circumstantial evidence can support a finding that a communication was intercepted, even absent direct evidence

("[D]irect evidence of a fact is not required. Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.").

GS2

[BPG]

You just might get your wish.

Attachment 17711

Good For him.... I wish him the VERY best of luck !

BPG~

[JCO]

Good For him.... I wish him the VERY best of luck !

BPG~

Well the only thing left would be a subpoena of IP records ... If his home IP was conecting to an IKS server combined with the PP evidence his goose is cooked.. Even if he says his network was hacked..

[BPG]

Plenty to be said about a Wifi antenna

[MarvinGardens]

His D testimony can simply be, "I had heard about this IKS thing from a friend, and bought the code since it was cheap enough, but never endeavored beyond that, to acquire a satellite receiver. It just all seemed too complicated for me".

That would be like saying "I bought a barrel of gasoline but then decided I did not want to go through the process of studying for my driver's license and then purchase a car. It turns out the test was too hard and car prices are beyond my finances".

Buying an IKS subscription would be your final step not your first step.

Your argument might fly in Mickey Mouse court but not in Federal court.

[budyyy]

If Oscar Pistorius can get bail, im sure we've got a fighting chance.. The courts aren't bound by logic aparently.

[bkr™]

If Oscar Pistorius can get bail, im sure we've got a fighting chance.. The courts aren't bound by logic aparently.

That is an interesting perception...hmmmm.

[JCO]

If Oscar Pistorius can get bail, im sure we've got a fighting chance.. The courts aren't bound by logic aparently.

Well not all courts are South African..LOL

[iq180]

He denies anything is what I read. That's his defense. That is pretty standard when you file a defense answer. That doesn't mean they are going to have to prove he had a sat receiver and connected to the server. He'll have to explain why he bought codes that only have one purpose but to access plaintiff's signals without legal authorization when deposed especially if he says he never owned a sat system. Why buy them than. The plaintiff might have server logs. They might have posts or private messages if they connected his name to an nick. They could go to his house and see if there is a dish pointing to their signals. They could go to his neighbor and and ask if he ever had a dish on his roof. If they find anything that would hurt his defense. Remember in civil if its more likely than not then you could lose. His defense can possibly work if its true and there is nothing incriminating that is found and if he doesn't make a mistake while being deposed, also explaning why he bought a subscription to an illegal service that makes sense. People just don't look to buy a subscription like that if they never own a sat receiver. What brought him to even go there. He doesn't deny the purchase. While these things might or might be proved what I am saying is that it might not be necessary as other factors could or could not come into play.


If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now. Unless they send out letters or file lawsuits over a year from now and longer defendants might not be in a position to wait.



GS2

remember he did not buy a code, he sent a donation to an old man and used PP, no server logs or isp logs, no case.

[dishuser]

remember he did not buy a code, he sent a donation to an old man and used PP, no server logs or isp logs, no case.

donation?
really?
and you know this how?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

remember he did not buy a code, he sent a donation to an old man and used PP, no server logs or isp logs, no case.

Don't think the donation idea will be effective. I can't agree there is no case unless if they have server or ISP logs. Circumstantial evidence if good can be sufficient without having that direct evidence. We don't know what circumstantial evidence they may or may not have or what they will be able to get or not get. ISP's have cooperated before and if they say we need a court order courts usually issue one to plaintiff. If they have some incriminating message or email they won't need logs. At this point we don't know. With now having a defense from a defendant they will start looking for evidence to counter that defense. With no defense answer they don't have to bother with investigation. If this defendant is telling the truth than he could possibly have success but if hes not and they find something than not having server logs won't dictate that there is no case.




GS2

[fifties]

To say that is all they appear to have is not the way to look at it in my opinion. They don't state what evidence they may or may not have to support their claim in the complaint. They can also pick up evidence after filling the complaint. I think your missing the requirement for civil whether its more likely than not. Those stories rarely work like I just bought this code because it was cheap but I never had a satellite receiver

You continue to miss -or ignore- something I have continually posted, so I am going to isolate it for you; the term is...................................

"discovery".

I know that you know what this procedure is, but for the benefit of those who don't, it is the process wherein each side presents to the other all of their evidence, the purpose being that no surprises surface at the actual trial, and additionally the potential to settle and avoid trial, if one side sees an unavoidable defeat.

Now in this particular type of situation, IF Charlie's lawyer displays ISP logs showing a connection between the defendants ISP and the IKS server addy, and IF defense council advises against a claim that his client's WiFi must have been hacked, then the two pieces of evidence -the purchase of the code and the ISP logs- should be sufficient.

Don't forget, although Dave often won, he also lost cases where he tried to argue in court that folks purchasing items that could hack his service, actually did so with them. In fact, I believe at least one U.S. Circuit Court developed a backlash toward his tactics, after a period of time.

I still maintain that a D of "I bought the code, but never used it, because I never bought a receiver", is valid, and especially so if they can produce no logs.

But that's just my opinion.

[Hannibalector]

You continue to miss -or ignore- something I have continually posted, so I am going to isolate it for you; the term is...................................

"discovery".

I know that you know what this procedure is, but for the benefit of those who don't, it is the process wherein each side presents to the other all of their evidence, the purpose being that no surprises surface at the actual trial, and additionally the potential to settle and avoid trial, if one side sees an unavoidable defeat.

Now in this particular type of situation, IF Charlie's lawyer displays ISP logs showing a connection between the defendants ISP and the IKS server addy, and IF defense council advises against a claim that his client's WiFi must have been hacked, then the two pieces of evidence -the purchase of the code and the ISP logs- should be sufficient.

Don't forget, although Dave often won, he also lost cases where he tried to argue in court that folks purchasing items that could hack his service, actually did so with them. In fact, I believe at least one U.S. Circuit Court developed a backlash toward his tactics, after a period of time.

I still maintain that a D of "I bought the code, but never used it, because I never bought a receiver", is valid, and especially so if they can produce no logs. But that's just my opinion.

don't forget the bin, no bin or RQCS no go, nothing happens in IKS without the bins, factory bins and avr/computer connections alone won't do squat either, ergo the ISP record, ergo proof of a bin, dish and reciever are all legal equipment to own, evidence sure, but that equipment won't do anything unless tampered with

[alvirgieca]

ok guys lets hope that kailas magi win his case that way a lot of hobbyist that got letter had a fighting chance to win.

[hondoharry]

What about someone who bought the code on his PayPal acct. for a friend who had bad credit. He couldn't possibly be guilty of decrypting signals. Then again, it would cost more to defend.