Its Friday 12.30pm. Any news about the injunction?

[cdsgames]

Please let us know. Any info is apreciated

[TheReal-KRoGaR]

I am wondering the same thing... Looking everywhere but no word yet.

[catnip2377]

Add me to the list of curious ones.

[Birbao]

It's 1:17pm, do you know where your court is? :gg Tee hee. I hope all goes well. I'll be keeping my eye in here, too.

[rx-7]

ontario lost ,so we are all in deep sh** :o

[gunsmoke2]

The Court did not grant the stay of the injunction. The judge said it was in the public interest to keep it status quo as per the supreme court ruling.


The judge said there was no evidence that the government was going to enforce the law.


However that was the whole point and now they will or more likely lawsuits from ExpressVu


GS2

[TheReal-KRoGaR]

When is the actual Charter Challenge. Just wondering how long this is going to go on.

[TestCardStore]

The Court did not grant the stay of the injunction. The judge said it was in the public interest to keep it status quo as per the supreme court ruling.
-------------------------
I think it is more that dealers are not as important to the governments bottom line. RJ Reynolds was granted one, but if you look at the tax levy on a pack of butts you can see why.

[denverb2b]

What non sense.. Guess its game over for now there is nothing protecting anyone from getting charged or arrested, that goes for my 79 year old grandfather to I guess :( what a shame... Keep up the fight but like everyone said it could take 2-3 years to get it complete, which means it will all be dried up by then.. :( :( :(

[cdsgames]

We are ----ed.

[honky]

We are floggin a dead horse!

[To The Real King!!]

Hi People,

Sorry but there seems to be widespread misconception of WHAT we lost. All it was the extension of the Injunction, not the main case itself on the merits. That has not even been argued yet and this is ONLY the Injunctive (urgent) decision . What the judge ruled is that there was no proof that there would be any enforcement action by the Police and he is not really wrong about that. . And if there WAS then we could go right back to the court with a different set of facts.

So please don't be discouraged by this. Its just a small step in the overall battle. Remember the Judges in both Quebec and Ontario said that there WAS a serious issue to be tried here. So that IS recognized. It just that we were asking the court for a preemptive ruling and that is difficult for a court to give. The reason is that courts are supposed to act on what HAS HAPPENED, and not on what MAY happen. In a sense we were trying for something that would have been very difficult for any court to grant.

But this has NOTHING to do with the actual constitutional issue at all. That has not been heard by ay court and we DO have a date for June 12th which is not that far away. If we can win "ON THE MERITS" hen we will get an injunction granted.

So please folks this is a small hardship in that it could be problematic for people to continue to operate their businesses. In fact some people will close for a period of time until this can be heard. But the battle is FAR from lost. Its just that people cannot operate their business with impunity during this period.

Further I will predict right now that there will be little if ANY enforcement by the Government. They understand the position they will be in if they do enforce.

But the real sleeper here is McKenzie who is VERY likely to go after anyone who openly flaunts the law in any way and take civil actions against them. It is far from sure he would win these actions but he will take them anyway for the "scare factor" for the least.

In my opinion anyone in business who sells any device that fits the RC Act description under 9 (1) B and 10 (1) C should immediately cease and desist with that type of product.

Many discussions will be going on between Lawyers this weekend and all through next week and a strategy will be developed.

Just as so many people POO PAWED and did not believe we could win all the cases we did in court 2 years ago, the same doubting Thomases will now say this is black gloom. Well folks its NOT at ALL and we have as good or better a chance at this Constitutional issue as we EVER had at winning in the courts a couple of years ago.

It really aint over till the fat lady sings and she is very far from her swan song at this point.

Keep the spirits UP FOLKS, we still have these forums to discuss the issues and I think you will see a brilliant strategy emerge from this seemingly black day. At this point there is ONLY one direction we can go and that is UPWARD and ONWARDhttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/lrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[ossi]

Many thanks for the reassuring words TTRK!:)

[aces99]

I am with ya TTRK

[wiggy2000]

guys if you read kalyna's post you will see that this charter is not for us to program cards...if im not mistaken...look at the sticky above...
thanks

[m2dmhot]

So in plain english
Will stores close down and take a chance???
Could bev go after business and sue???
Is it illegal or legal??
Still confused

[wiggy2000]

my understanding is that at this point b3v can sue anyone especially dealers...yes they can close dealers and websites that offer programming...remember like kalyna has pointed out that it was not legal since april 26th to hack dvae or charlie...i know that will answer your questions
thanks

[GhostDog]

Originally posted by wiggy2000
remember like kalyna has pointed out that it was not legal since april 26th to hack dvae or charlie...i know that will answer your questions
thanks

it actually has NEVER been legal

[gunsmoke2]

it actually has NEVER been legal


Wrong it was legal up til the Supreme Court ruling.



GS2

[wiggy2000]

somewhere in the lines of "you cant steal something you cant buy"...remember that line?..lol
thanks

[chubba]

Originally posted by gunsmoke2



Wrong it was legal up til the Supreme Court ruling.



GS2

Actually I believe GhostDog is correct. The Supreme Court Ruling, in effect, verified the illegality dating back to 1991. But the authorities will do nothing about any infractions prior to April 26.

My take on it anyway...

[GhostDog]

Originally posted by chubba

The Supreme Court Ruling, in effect, verified the illegality dating back to 1991. But the authorities will do nothing about any infractions prior to April 26.


Yes, that was the idea i got from reading some TTRK posts.

[kalyna]

Wrong, I asked that question of Mr Alan Gold if GRANDFATHERING would be in effect.

His reponse was a DEFINATE NO, This is definately not good if they want to make an example of you :( :(

Kalyna

[GhostDog]

so whos right here? Getting confused, this is an important point IMO.

[kalyna]

In simple terms the Supreme Court CLARIFIED the LAW as it was written, hence NO Grandfathering.

I suggest we all seriously consult our own legal counsil for a more appropriate answer/legal advice, and not use this forum for legal advise. This forum is great for opinions but remember its not LEGAL advise. Either is my post.

Kalyna

[warezmike]

whatever the ruling...smartcard programmers are a legitimate device to be sold and used. The EXPLICIT sale of devices or PROGRAMS used to recieve encrypted signals is illegal. What does this mean....many "dealers" promoting and selling US gear should be out of business, BUT it does not mean that internet sites "discussing" the merits of smart card security, and means of ensuring that smart card technology remains secure, ie pointing out flaws or bugs in the technology are illegal. Therefore sharing info on how smartcard protections can be beat in order to make the cards more secure is in everyones interest from the people issuing the cards to the people using the technology!! Read into this, and prepare for our next legal challenge as to what rights the chretian government and bell will try and make illegal!!!!!!

[gunsmoke2]

Actually I believe GhostDog is correct. The Supreme Court Ruling, in effect, verified the illegality dating back to 1991. But the authorities will do nothing about any infractions prior to April 26.



The supreme court ruled on the law on April 26, 2002 not 1991


There are provisions in the RC Act that technically they can charge from I believe 3 years ago ? but very unlikely according to Allan Gold's office.


For ones that have been charged like myself even more very unlikely as we haven't finished our original cases.. most are in appeals which means its on going. Some will go back to their original trial Judge and seek a ruling on the Charter.



GS2

[hellbornex]

Im confused with the grandfathering issue. Cause I do not see how this has anything to do with supreme court ruling and what was legal prior to it.

Anyone who sold or programmed any kind of sat product pertaining to either echostar or DTV in no way can be prosecuted for it. As it was legal!!

If you are saying that grandfathering an HU card ie .. continuing to program that card after the ruling then NO!! It is now illegal to do so.

Well I hope that is what was meant by grandfathering.

One more thing Lawyers are all scum sucking vermon they are the scum of the earth. And they are the only ones laughing through all this....all the way to the bank!! The longer this goes on the richer they will be.

[warezmike]

What I would say....since the law WAS/IS so poorly written, any cases prior to April 26th/2002 should be thrown out. The precidents in all the lower court rulings would tend to suggest that many learned judges rulings should and could not be dismissed. The fact that the Supreme Court cleared up the confusion as to the written text of the law should make it enforcable from that point on and any prior cases be dismissed unless actions contravening the judgment continued after the decision.

[Jeet]

Laws can not be applied retroactively, that is a fundamental princple of all western legal justice systems. The B.C. Supreme Court and Appeals Court both ruled that Section 9(1)(c) did not protect American signals. That was the law in B.C. at that time, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta of course also had similiars rulings from the their courts. Of course after April 26th, 2002, people would not have to worry about RCMP raids, RCMP probably does not want commit valuable resources to something that might eventually be over turned on a charter challenge.

Expressvu on the other hand, realizing that they have the advantage for the time being and risk losing that advantage if the current Surpreme Court ruling is overturned on a charter challenge, is who you have to be afraid of. They have the money to spend and if it is wasted, they will only have to answer to only their share holders. However if the threat of lawsuits forces individuals to cease, even if only for a little a while, the as far as Expressvu would be considered it would be well worth it.

Keep in mind since December 1999, Expressvu has been fighting a losing battle, with decisions being handed against their favour left, right and centre. This is the first time they have the upper hand with a court ruling that is binding in all provinces. Before they only had rulings from provincial courts that were only persuasive to courts in other provinces. They will not waste the advantage they have and the letter that was sent off quickly to paypal should only prove this point.

If Expressvu is going to lose the war then they want too at least inflict the most serious amount of damage they can and for the time being they have the case law to do that with.

[Good_Backbacon]

How do you spell Pooched

[Jeet]

For those who are seeking clarification on the law, here it is in a nutshell.

Is it illegal to hack Directv or Echostar?
In Canada you can hack Directv all you want. But if you decrypt the Directv or Echostar signal then you are committing a crime.

So then if I subscribe to Directv or Echostar then I am not committing a crime since I am not hacking the signal?
You can hack the Directv signal all you want. You just can not decrypt it. By subscribing you are decrypting the signal and so therefore you are committing a crime.

But I thought the whole purpose of hacking DTV or Dish was to decrypt the signal?
Hopefully if you are doing it right you were decrypting the signal. Otherwise you probably were just wasting your time.

Now I am really confused?
You should be. What you need to realize is that hacking and decrypting are to distinct actions. What the Supreme Court of Canada ruled was decrypting the DTV or Dish satellite signal is illegal. They did not even look at hacking at all.

Ok in plain English, what is illegal?
As stated previously, decrypting is illegal. Also any activity that permits people to decrypt the DTV or Dish signal is illegal. So therefore hacking and subscribing to DTV or Dish is also illegal. That is why dealers, stores and websites, who don't want to risk lawsuits, will close down.

So the RCMP is going to go charging everyone?
Most likely not. The RCMP would most likely not want to waste any resources until the charter arguements are dealt and heard with. Also keep in mind that the RCMP would have to charge you under the Criminal Code, I think it is Section 313. However the person who would go after you would be Bell Expressvu. They would go after you through a civil action which means you could be on the hook for hundreds if not thousands of dollars if you the judge was to rule against you.

[Good_Backbacon]

Is there not a simpler way to say this stuff??

[gunsmoke2]

(6) A prosecution for an offence under this Act may be commenced within, but not after, three years after the day on which the subject-matter of the offence arose.




GS2

[Good_Backbacon]

We are all going to jail

[warezmike]

but as has been previously posted...expressvu equipment would also fall under the supreme court decision as it can CLEARY recieve illegal US encrypted signals!!!!!!
someone should sue bell for potentially making them criminals under this new law...read they use the same systems and technology as charlie thus making EVERY expressvu customer in contravention of the act... hmmm punative damages and the swap costs could shut bell the *uck up heheheheh

[Good_Backbacon]

Were all going to jail? boy

[gunsmoke2]

but as has been previously posted...expressvu equipment would also fall under the supreme court decision as it can CLEARY recieve illegal US encrypted signals!!!!!!


Not sure who posted that but it is wrong. ExpressVu pays copyrights to certain US encrypted signals that they broadcast and they are licensed by the CRTC.


The supreme court clearly defined the lawful distributer and who they are in Canada.


GS2

[sharbel]

but as has been previously posted...expressvu equipment would also fall under the supreme court decision as it can CLEARY recieve illegal US encrypted signals!!!!!!

You have to repoint the dish and download firmware to the receiver before you can see this US signal. So in other words, you are modifying the receiver (downloading and installing firmware) to do this.. you are committing the offense, not E-puke. Atleast thats how I think the courts would see it

[Jeet]

There is a principle of double jeopardy. You can not be retried for an offence that you have already been tried for once. Unless of course a mistrial is declared in your origional trial or the decisions is appealed, the later is the case with Can-Am. The crown can not recharge people for the same offences that they have already been acquited for once. They of course can charge them with new offences under the same law (post Supreme Court of Canada decision).

[GhostDog]

I wish I could find the post by TTRK where he makes this clear that they can go back and charge retroactively. Not to say they will, but they CAN technically, perhaps the king can enlighten us here. Or maybe I was just halucinating (a distinct possibility considering my rampant drug use. :D) ;)

[Dean_M_Love]

I think the notion that they can now go back and lay charges for something that was done prior to the Supreme Court ruling is absolutely ridiculous.

A fundamental principal of our Justice system is that an accused needs to have reasonable notice BEFORE he is committing an alleged infraction that what he is doing is illegal. This doesn't mean ignorance of the law would be an excuse, it is still up to the citizen to know and abide by the laws, however when a law such as this one, whose meaning was so widely interpreted in different ways, does not make it plainly obvious to the reader what he may or may not do, and that confusion is given further weight by the interpretations in a variety of jurisdictions favouring a certain interpretation, then a citizen surely cannot be subsequently faulted for merely following the law as it was applied at the time. Anything else would be a perversion of our whole system.

This is not the first case where a law was subject to differing interpretations. This is what case law is all about. As each decision is rendered, the state of the law does so change too, but not BEFORE the decision. Otherwise we would have a situation where citizens would have to speculate about what a possible outcome of some future litigation might be, and how that might impact upon their conduct today. That is simply unfathomable when you consider all of the tenets of our and underlying principles of our system, including an accused rights to know what he is being charged with. And a citizens right to know what defines a particular crime BEFORE they commit it, not based on some ruling up to 3 yrs later that now contradicts almost all of the previous case law.

If I am wrong, I would love to hear an opinion, but I really don't know how any other principle could apply.

[gunsmoke2]

(6) A prosecution for an offence under this Act may be commenced within, but not after, three years after the day on which the subject-matter of the offence arose.



Its the second time I posted this in this thread. Techically under the RC Act they could charge three years after the day on which the subject matter of the offence arose.


I have discussed with Maureen at Allan Gold's office. Technically yes but very very unlikely.


Its not my opinion but rather of an attorney and the provision of the RC Act I posted above.



GS2

[Dean_M_Love]

yes the statute does give a 3yr limitation on prosecutions, but I don't think that should be misread as allowing them to go back in time before the Supreme Court ruling, particularly in Jurisdictions where there was contradictory Superior Court rulings in effect, and now lay charges.

What the section you refer to is really there for is to limit the time in which you can be prosecuted, recognizing that the offence is not a criminal one, but rather a regulatory one, I think it can be concluded that it would be unfair for a person to spend the rest of their lives wondering if the RCMP would bust down their door for watching some 'outlawed' TV program 5 years ago. Hence the limitation on prosecution, which I believe is also an indicator that the seriousness of the offence is not terribly high, even though the maximum sentence is 6months in jail.

[gunsmoke2]

I think that is why she said very very unlikely because they could open up a can of worms and possibly face a lawsuit if they are not careful


GS2