Letter now Court case

[sodusme]

Meeting a 13 old by itself is not a crime but under your description of meeting a 13 year old and it turned out to be an under cover would make one think there was some not very good intent going on. Under cover like that usually mean it was something going on that was not very kosher. It usually means the under cover is trying to catch you at doing something so you could be charged with a crime. It might seem like its not fair but if done right it is acceptable. You can legally be caught that way.


Now not saying you would not have defenses as you probably would and than a judge or jury will decide.





GS2

Yes that is all I'm trying to make a point on.

Its getting where true 'justice' doesn't exist anymore in this country. It boils down to which attorney(s) can lie the best. There is no sense of 'innocent until proven guilty' anymore. Not that there ever was but its gotten worse, much worse. One thing though you said that concerns me and I know that it is true as I've been caught up in it. You mention 'trying to catch you at doing something so you could be charged with a crime'....since when did that become crime fighting in America? Don't we all do something that we 'could' be caught at....but its not really a crime per se....until you are actually caught at it. This is what my whole argument is over. There is no 'trying to catch'....either you are caught committing a crime OR you are not. LEA shouldn't be allowed to operate this way. Its B.S. IMO.

I know I would definitely take my chances with a jury though instead of a judge. That way you have a better chance instead of trying to convince only one person.

[alex70olds]

Take a look at this motion, and the response to it. The motion to dismiss brings a lot of points made here in this thread. The case was voluntarily dismissed, so a ruling on the dismissal was never made.

DA Dames motion to dismiss excellent.pdf
DA Dames Response to motion to dismiss.pdf
DA Dames Volentary dismissal.pdf

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Yes that is all I'm trying to make a point on.

Its getting where true 'justice' doesn't exist anymore in this country. It boils down to which attorney(s) can lie the best. There is no sense of 'innocent until proven guilty' anymore. Not that there ever was but its gotten worse, much worse. One thing though you said that concerns me and I know that it is true as I've been caught up in it. You mention 'trying to catch you at doing something so you could be charged with a crime'....since when did that become crime fighting in America? Don't we all do something that we 'could' be caught at....but its not really a crime per se....until you are actually caught at it. This is what my whole argument is over. There is no 'trying to catch'....either you are caught committing a crime OR you are not. LEA shouldn't be allowed to operate this way. Its B.S. IMO.

I know I would definitely take my chances with a jury though instead of a judge. That way you have a better chance instead of trying to convince only one person.

Sometimes they have a complaint against someone and need more evidence. Using under cover in that situation is fighting crime in America. Sometimes its abused and defendant's lawyer will try to have that evidence thrown out.



GS2

[sodusme]

Take a look at this motion, and the response to it. The motion to dismiss brings a lot of points made here in this thread. The case was voluntarily dismissed, so a ruling on the dismissal was never made.

DA Dames motion to dismiss excellent.pdf
DA Dames Response to motion to dismiss.pdf
DA Dames Volentary dismissal.pdf

Nice maybe some attorney is finally reading what we have been saying here.

This guy makes some valid points. The best one I think is that DN/Echostar aren't even authorized on behalf of Nagra to bring suit based on copyright infringement. They would have to prove that they represent and have been charged with the task of such to have it stand up in court I would think. Nagra is its own entity as he says so why aren't they bringing suit?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Take a look at this motion, and the response to it. The motion to dismiss brings a lot of points made here in this thread. The case was voluntarily dismissed, so a ruling on the dismissal was never made.

DA Dames motion to dismiss excellent.pdf
DA Dames Response to motion to dismiss.pdf
DA Dames Volentary dismissal.pdf

Now we can only speculate as to which way it would have gone because of the settlement. Without having any knowledge of the details of settlement that makes it hard to determine which party moved more for a settlement and wanted to stop the proceedings from progressing to rulings on the motion to dismiss.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Nice maybe some attorney is finally reading what we have been saying here.

This guy makes some valid points. The best one I think is that DN/Echostar aren't even authorized on behalf of Nagra to bring suit based on copyright infringement. They would have to prove that they represent and have been charged with the task of such to have it stand up in court I would think. Nagra is its own entity as he says so why aren't they bringing suit?

Personally think that was the weakest argument brought forth to dismiss that they do not qualify under the DMCA to sue. We will never know but only in opinion I would see that going in plaintiff's favor.



GS2

[alex70olds]

Notice where one thing cited in the motion was claiming the plaintiffs submitted a "Shotgun" pleading. I stumbled across another DA case in Florida Fed court where the judge ruled it was indeed a "shotgun" pleading.

DA Vasquez Order Plaintiffs Shotgun Complaint.pdf

[garysam]

bla bla bla
if you don't think you're screwed you're an idiot
enjoy spending 5 k to fight less...duh

I never took you for a poet...nice! BTW, you remind me of another guy that was on a number of forums for years. He called himself "Rotten". Any relation? I kinda miss that little prick.

[Le_Gnome]

I never took you for a poet...nice! BTW, you remind me of another guy that was on a number of forums for years. He called himself "Rotten". Any relation? I kinda miss that little prick.

Nice first post! Welcome to Satfix whoever you are!

[sodusme]

So what exactly got 'dismissed'? The case against him got dismissed totally....or the 'motion for dismissal' got dismissed. LOL

I have trouble understanding all this legal mumbo jumbo.

[fifties]

I have trouble understanding all this legal mumbo jumbo.

And here I thought you were our resident legal council;

boy are we in trouble!

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Notice where one thing cited in the motion was claiming the plaintiffs submitted a "Shotgun" pleading. I stumbled across another DA case in Florida Fed court where the judge ruled it was indeed a "shotgun" pleading.

DA Vasquez Order Plaintiffs Shotgun Complaint.pdf

The problem there is the court ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. They did. Eventually the defendant agreed to a Judgement of $10,000 and agreed to a permanent injunction.


It would be interesting to see the difference between the first complaint that was thrown out to the amended complaint that was not thrown out.





GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

So what exactly got 'dismissed'? The case against him got dismissed totally....or the 'motion for dismissal' got dismissed. LOL

I have trouble understanding all this legal mumbo jumbo.

They filled a complaint. Defense made a motion to dismiss the complaint due to finding it was a shotgun pleading. The court agreed with the motion and ordered the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. They did that was not considered a shotgun pleading. The defendant eventually lost.

In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. No. 1), filed on August 17, 2011, is STRICKEN.
2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order
on or before September 6, 2011. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action.

GS2

[sodusme]

And here I thought you were our resident legal council;

boy are we in trouble!

I'm actually the resident anonymity and networking guy. That is where my expertise lies.

[alex70olds]

United States IKS End User Civil Cases and Status

Dark Angel Endusers US Cases.

DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. WILLIAMS Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Steele Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to Seize Vehicles
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Powell Default Judgment $10,000.00
NagraStar LLC et al v. Harrell Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Saunder Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Wineteer Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dubar Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hardison Summary Judgement $10,000 Plus $20,315 costs.
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Lohnes Dismissed With Out Prejudice
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Everette Default Judgment $10,000.00
EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. ROUNDS Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. SWEETING Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Jeffrey Parsons Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Daniel Arriola Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1,200 Costs.
DISH Network LLC et al v. Goncalves Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. THOMAS Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L C. et al v. Khan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried File Bankruptcy,court hit him another $6,051 in costs.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Harris Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Henry Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Layer Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Dummer Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Fowler Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Karapet Menemshyan Default Judgment $10,000.00 Plus $1200 in Costs.
Dish Network LLC et al v. Ken Moorhead Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Santa Monica Systems Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Arafat Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. James Terrazas Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Lopez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rhoades Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Frederick Dismissed With Out Prejudice
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Pruneda Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Sanchez Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. John Mitchell Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Main Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Vasquez Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK LLC et al v. PIPPIN Default Judgment $10,000.00 Attempting to collect.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dames Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Forbes Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Goss Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Robbins Voluntary Dismissal Never Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Vega Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Rana Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Mondry Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Diallo Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Alafa Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Berger Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network, LLC et al v. Tackie Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Friedman Default Judgment $10,000.00
Network LLC et al v. Scott Default Judgment after fighting for a while. $10,000 + $15,000 Costs
Dish Network LLC et al v. Smith Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Moran Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Suarez Default Judgment $0 Judge Crossed out Damages, considered injunction adequate.
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Ventura Voluntary Dismissal
Dish Network LLC v. DelVecchio Default Judgment $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Blair Default Judgment $10,000.00 Tried to seize property
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Lucas Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Norris Default Judgment Judge adjusted to $1500.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Hamilton Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Schaefer Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perez Settled Confidential Amount
Dish Network LLC et al v. Perry (Contested) Summary Judgment 10K + 15K Costs and attorney fees.
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Borden Settled Confidential Amount Claimed 5th
Dish Network, L.L.C. et al v. Nguyen Settled Confidential Amount
DISH Network LLC et al v. Ashworth Settled $10,000.00
Dish Network LLC et al v. Wiley Motion for Default Judgment filed 2-4-2013, not granted yet.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Martin Settled $10,000.00
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. JONES Default Judgment $10,000.00 PI Denied.
EchoStar Technologies LLC et al v. Kimbrough Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network LLC et al v. Venning Default Judgment $10,000.00
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Dalmer Default Judgment $10,000.00

Wufman End user cases

DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Magi Fighting, Scheduling Conference Report Due By 4-29-2013.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Keown Clerks Entry of Default
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. FAROOQUI Clerks Entry of Default
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Haubner Hiding From Being Served
Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Harrison Summons Issued, Nothing Since 1-30-2013
Dish Network L.L.C., et al v. Gonzalez Clerks Entry of Default
DISH Network LLC et al v. Aurora Herrera Summons Issued 1-29-2012
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Yelverton Settled $10,000.00
DISH Network L.L.C. et al v. Williamson Answered Complaint 2-29-2012