Letter now Court case

[smallyjohnson]

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.

YIKES! first post calling out muff? not a good idea

[ftaalltheway]

Just an example fifties, just an example.

Evidently you don't need real strong 'evidence' as they don't have real strong evidence. I know that in a civil case you have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence or in other words 51% to 49%. But yeah I was simply comparing that they (meaning DN/Nagra) are going on 'intent' because they have no ironclad evidence that theft actually occurred. So they have to be drawing the conclusion that your 'intent' was to use these codes to steal television since they cannot actually prove that you stole it. They can only surmise by the meager evidence they have compiled.

an "intent" usually includes other "relevent" evidence,,,say one is caught
with 3 lbs of weed, even in your premises, it is obvious "that" amount
is NOT for personal use,,,the prosecutor will obviously contend you had
intended to sell it, one day...just one example

in my view, and agree with most of what you posted about these letetrs
and claim by plaintifs, there should be more than "intent" in THESE cases

it does appear, to me as well, that the courts are favoring all claims in
plaintifs' favour only b/c not many will file a response, thinking they are
dead in the water, a water filled with mud,,,seams that just b/c their lawers
are officials of the court that they are deemed to be filing legit claims,,,
fact is, any claim in civil, are just as contentious as the next,,,if a defendant
doesnt see the smallest detail that can be argued to be frivilous, he/she
will lose ,,it takes good detailed people to weed out the frivilous aspect(s) of a claim

such as is the case in these claims,,,i said it be4,,,if they have NOTHING else than "intent, in THESE cases?
and prevail? then not only is there something VERY wrong with the system BUT one can
bet their bottomn dollars, judges can be bought

Happy Easter!

[sodusme]

an "intent" usually includes other "relevent" evidence,,,say one is caught
with 3 lbs of weed, even in your premises, it is obvious "that" amount
is NOT for personal use,,,the prosecutor will obviously contend you had
intended to sell it, one day...just one example

in my view, and agree with most of what you posted about these letetrs
and claim by plaintifs, there should be more than "intent" in THESE cases

it does appear, to me as well, that the courts are favoring all claims in
plaintifs' favour only b/c not many will file a response, thinking they are
dead in the water, a water filled with mud,,,seams that just b/c their lawers
are officials of the court that they are deemed to be filing legit claims,,,
fact is, any claim in civil, are just as contentious as the next,,,if a defendant
doesnt see the smallest detail that can be argued to be frivilous, he/she
will lose ,,it takes good detailed people to weed out the frivilous aspect(s) of a claim

such as is the case in these claims,,,i said it be4,,,if they have NOTHING else than "intent, in THESE cases?
and prevail? then not only is there something VERY wrong with the system BUT one can
bet their bottomn dollars, judges can be bought

Happy Easter!

Very true....the only thing I would argue is the very possession of 'weed' is illegal in of itself. Which constitutes a crime whether its for personal use or selling.

These codes like I have said before are simply codes. The codes mean nothing and of themselves are not illegal to posses. Until which time that changes I still say DN/Nagra has no case or at least they shouldn't have a case. They are a bull in a china shop when it comes to these cases and prey on the fact that the 'little' guy won't fight back.

Its a far stretch from buying some codes to pirating television on a Saturday night with a big bowl of popcorn in front of you in a home in suburbia U.S.A. They can say all they want about "Your intent was to do this" or "Your intent was to do that"....but in the long run they have nothing.

In fact my line of questioning would go something like this....I would pick out a large television event that transpired during the time frame that the piracy was alleged to have taken place. Maybe a UFC event. I would ask Hagan, Noll and Boyle if it was possible that John Doe was able to watch this UFC match provided the technology from this IKS setup? When they said YES which they naturally would. I would then ask them "Ok so you have irrefutable evidence that John Doe did in fact watch this UFC match on the date of XYZ correct"? Of course they would have none and that would be the end of that line of questioning.

[oz2804]

YIKES! first post calling out muff? not a good idea

ya shouldnt be scared of internet tough guys no matter of amount of posts on either side!muffin lmao!

[JCO]

Very true....the only thing I would argue is the very possession of 'weed' is illegal in of itself. Which constitutes a crime whether its for personal use or selling.

These codes like I have said before are simply codes. The codes mean nothing and of themselves are not illegal to posses. Until which time that changes I still say DN/Nagra has no case or at least they shouldn't have a case. They are a bull in a china shop when it comes to these cases and prey on the fact that the 'little' guy won't fight back.

Its a far stretch from buying some codes to pirating television on a Saturday night with a big bowl of popcorn in front of you in a home in suburbia U.S.A. They can say all they want about "Your intent was to do this" or "Your intent was to do that"....but in the long run they have nothing.

In fact my line of questioning would go something like this....I would pick out a large television event that transpired during the time frame that the piracy was alleged to have taken place. Maybe a UFC event. I would ask Hagan, Noll and Boyle if it was possible that John Doe was able to watch this UFC match provided the technology from this IKS setup? When they said YES which they naturally would. I would then ask them "Ok so you have irrefutable evidence that John Doe did in fact watch this UFC match on the date of XYZ correct"? Of course they would have none and that would be the end of that line of questioning.

Medicinal weed is not illegal in certain states.. MAybe there is a need for medicinal codes..ROFLMAO

[dishuser]

Medicinal weed is not illegal in certain states.. MAybe there is a need for medicinal codes..ROFLMAO

legal in canada too...check it out

[JCO]

legal in canada too...check it out

CAnada is way more advanced than the states. LOL

[Hannibalector]

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.

Attachment 17950
Attachment 17951
Attachment 17952

(collectively, "DISH Network"), and Defendent Frederick Dames respectfully notify the Court of the parties settement of this action


DISH Network voluntarily dismisses this action against the Defendent

the one word in this that is surprising is "settlement" and what can or can't be inferred by it

[sharkar]

I am confused, who can explain why?

[abouttosnap]

I am confused, who can explain why?

Well you could be like me and not be wrapped real tight in general and have issues. Seems I hit my head a few times as a child and I'm sure that didn't help much. lol Of course there is alcohol and or hard drugs that can contribute to one's confusion. Now some of them dag gum big words will tear me out the frame.

[rainman2]

I just want to know who went to court and how they lost their case.

[iq180]

I just want to know who went to court and how they lost their case.

I don't see anywhere that they lost, in fact it looks more like nagra/dish lost to me,JMO,lol.

[rainman2]

I would still like to hear of anyone meaning a IKS subscriber like let's say you or me or Tom, or Jerry. I would like to know how they defended themselves from the man. I am sure that info would help a lot of people. Can somebody in this forum step up and maybe give us a clue on how you did it. Maybe he, or she will .

[joeblow]

I would still like to hear of anyone meaning a IKS subscriber like let's say you or me or Tom, or Jerry. I would like to know how they defended themselves from the man. I am sure that info would help a lot of people. Can somebody in this forum step up and maybe give us a clue on how you did it. Maybe he, or she will .

anybody who has gone to court most likely has made an agreement that they will not have anything to do with FTA for as long as they live....which would include posting on these forums....

as for people defending themselves....this is how well they did....

here is what happens when you stick your head in the sand and ignore legal documentation.....




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

W*FM*N 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

[rainman2]

I guess a lot are up the creek. Thanks for the info. Better off paying them with their first offer. Sell your equipment to help pay the man. Netflix is starting to look better now. Guess I'll take the wife to a movie now and then.Cheaper.