Is the act of selling an HU card illegal

[TheProfessor]

Hypothetical Question...

I have a system I bought at Walmart and intended to install, just never got around to it and no longer need it. The card is virign. Would placing an add in a USA paper to sell it be unlawful???

It say property of NDS. Even If it is a recent de sub, I no longer pay the bill, Dave does not call and say I want my card back. At the most, they just won't more money if you had a contract. The only time Dave ask's for the card back, is when he swaps.

Oh, yeah Channel 222 is a sh*t. The send you card, video say when done throw it away... wrong. You must return it....

[To The Real King!!]

Hi TheProfessor,

I would like to take this time to try and inform people as to what is going on here and by that give you an answer, in a sense, to your question. This is a legal-rights type forum but there are no lawyers who are answering questions on LAW here.

So you will not get a legal answer to any yes or no type question, since we are not qualified.

What we do is discuss these issues among ourselves, express different opinions and try to give people as much information on the actual happenings both here and on the legal-rights.org website which is for the entire Satellite Community .

So we are not here to give YES or NO answers to these questions but to try to HELP inform you. We also ask everyone to CO_OPERATE and to BAND TOGETHER and to help each other. For instance if someone has a good experience with a Lawyer in say TEXAS, then please either POST THAT or send me a E-mail to trrk@legal-right.org and I will post it.

By CO-OPERATING with one another we do the same thing as the opposition who all assist each other to get convictions.

Knowledge is POWER and the more we help each other the more likely we are to stop these onerous actions by DirecTV® and others and to help people DO BETTER in these issues. Even if that is only to have a experienced lawyer who can assist with a better settlement because he does know what other deals they have made.

So there is a spirit of CO-OPERATION and of getting KNOWLEDGE and opinion out there to other members of the Satellite Community. Everyone involved can and SHOULD assist by doing what they can to pass along information that may help others. If we stick together we may overcome these onerous actions.

I , for any reason a reader does not want to post in the open, this should not prevent him from writing me anonymously at ttrk@legal-rights.org and I will pass along this information.

I will NEVER compromise any identity and ONLY post information on identities in the open when it is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE such as court cases or Docket listings. Those are already revealed and are PUBLIC.

So folks, this is about sharing, YOUR HELP when possible and gaining knowledge and learning information pertaining to these issues.

But its NOT a YES OR NO forum where you ask and are assured of getting a proper legal opinion. That is NOT the purpose of the forums and it CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be expected.

Any opinions that anyone gets here are just that, OPINIONS and they should NOT be accepted as FACT. I say this just so people are aware of this and do NOT have false expectations of getting proper legal advise here. To get proper LEGAL advice you should contact and discuss the issue with a LAWYER in your area. So many of these issues are UNCLEAR and that is WHY there is a necessity for these forums.

In Canada for example, the law was CLEAR that it was NOT illegal to decode the DTV signal whether you paid or not. Court after court ruled that way and in fact there were some 17 judges who had ruled this all the way up to Appeals courts in two provinces. The fact that so many courts were called on to rule is clear proof that the law was NOT clear since apparently even high court judges were wrong according to the Supreme Court of Canada who ruled the opposite way.

This breaks every known rule about law, that exists. People are NOT supposed to have to guess what the law says or means. It is EXTREMELY unfair because the law does NOT express any "Total prohibition" which the Supreme Court stated some 11 years later. Many other Judges have even expressed this and said that id that was what parliament "SURLY THEY WOULD HAVE EXPRESSED IT IN THE CLEAREST OF WORDS".

But the Supreme Court of Canada did not care and acted politically to REVERSE all the other judges and put many Canadians in a terrible position by what they said.

Furthermore the Government has known since at least 1996 that this law was ambiguous, was unclear and was causing Canadians hardship in its interpretation.

A responsible government would have acted to CLARIFY the law because they could have done that at any time. But they chose instead to HARM Canadians by AMBUSH. What I mean by this is they allowed people to believe that the law made it legal. The first two cases that concerned DSS were the Ereiser case in Saskatchewan and the Leblanc case in Nova Scotia. The government chose to appeal NEITHER of these cases and so people believed that the government accepted what these rulings said. Doing so is particularly harmful and irresponsible and by this action they SUCKERED many Canadians into believing it was legal to decode as these judges had ruled. These rulings can be seen at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/rulings/ereiser.html

http://www.legal-rights.org/rulings/leblanc.html


And both judges made it abundantly clear that it was NOT illegal to decode the American signals of DirecTV®. Judge Klebuc in Erieser even went so far as to say:

I agree with Kennedy J. In addition, I am of the view that for a programming signal to qualify as a "subscription programming signal "under ss. 9(l) and 10(l)(b) of the RCA, it must be lawfully intended for reception by the public in Canada and the public must also be entitled to lawfully subscribe for it in Canada. Mere production of "pirate" or "grey market" programming signal is insufficient to constitute an offence under s. 10(l)(b).

I personally fault the lawyers who presented the case at the Supreme Court for not pointing this out clearly to these judges but frankly the Supreme Court had an obligation to look into the matter thoroughly and they themselves are remiss for not doing so. Had they done that they would properly have ruled that the law was AMBIGUOUS, which it is and they then would not have let down so many Canadians by the improper actions of the Government itself. By NOT appealing these rulings they tacitly agreed that this was the correct interpretation of the law.

I use this as one example of what a terrible mess has been Created by the Liberals NEGLIGENCE and INACTION here and the fact that in Canada people have been AMBUSHED by being incorrectly led in a direction and then HARMED due to its later being ruled a different way.

But the whole issue in both Canada and the United States is so unclear that as simple question that YOU have asked cannot be answered yes or no in any knowledgeable way by anyone. That is about as confusing as it gets and is truly a shame on the state of this whole issue.

Sorry for the long post to try to explain what seems so simple but in fact this is the confusion that surrounds this whole issue. Hopefully at some point courts will rule on this and those rulings will HAVE some MEANING to a person who simply wants a simple answer.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
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/freedomblack.gif

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!

[morgana]

This is not as stupid a question as I first thought when I read it. Things may have changed and then again they may not have. The recent ruling against Chronis in Nova Scotia has in itself implied that DTV is the true owners of the cards and that ownership can not be imparted to anyone else. I disagree with the courts ruling for many reasons, but I guess in order to get it changed we would need to appeal it, or fight another case on the merits that we own the cards.

As much as NDS says they are the owners of the cards and s/w on it, they have no binding contract of lease or use agreement with anyone who bought a system. So in absence of a binding lease agreement, and also control over who gets the cards, I do not feel that ownership can be determined to be their's.

When the system, was purchased their is no mention that it has leased parts inside, that you will never own even though you pay for them. When cards fail they charge you for new cards, again showing that you own them. If a card is lost or stolen, it is you who has to report that to the police, as you are the owner, not NDS or DTV. I do know that while we have been fighting the good fight openly DTV has been also fighting other battles, when sending out billing. A while back they included a paper in with your bill, that pretty much stated that you by contining your subscription, have given your acceptance to the card being owned by DTV / NDS and if you do not accept this you were to cancel the subscription. As I am only going by memory on this point, do not take any of the words as exact, I am only saying what I took the letter to mean, not to imply it as exact wording.

Now with all this being done, have we now had the ownership of the cards, taken from us without knowing? One would think that this can not happen, but I am not so sure. Yes in the past, we even had the Government of Canada selling seized cards at the border, and other cards they had in one way or another, taken from people. If the cards are not owned by these people, then the Canadain government has sold stolen property.

As far as I am concerned the cards belong to the people who purchased the units, in which they came or purchased them from any of the many dealers, who sold the cards openly to the public. That I can not see being changed by newer ruling by the courts. It would be like GM Ford and Chrysler claiming that all cars were never sold to you as being owned but as a lease, where since they built it and have s/w on the cpu modules that they always own it. You can never resell it to anyone. That would be ludicrous to even the most hardened judge. So why would it not be so now with our cards.

As I said in the beginning, this question as first seemd dumb, but dumb has many forked paths in this case. I am not so sure that my first impulse to say right out, that you can resell them as you own them, is the right answer. I still believe it is, but I can see the confusion that may arise from al that has gone on lately.

As long as you do not refer to anything that could be determined by the law enforcers to be aiding in stealing satellite signals, I do not really think you should worry at all. Just be careful not to cross those lines.

[ELF-CO]

From a “legal” standpoint, this question cannot be answered with 100% certainty, because it depends on which side of the border you sit on, and what lengths you are willing to go in order to prove yourself correct, in the event they get seized and you get charged with anything.

From the U.S. side of things… there are literally hundreds of sales for access cards (with receivers typically) on eBay every day. And DTV/NDS have no problems with this. (If they did, believe me, eBay would have put a stop to this long ago, and would not have categories specifically for “DSS Systems” and “DSS Receivers”). Since DTV and NDS work together with eBay to remove auctions that breach any DTV/NDS conditions… then any auction that carries on to it’s normal conclusion is a tacit approval of DTV/NDS that the sale was “okay” by them. DTV/NDS are a member of eBay’s Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program, and eBay acts on every auction that DTV/NDS report to them without question. This being the case, if you had to go to court to defend yourself for the sale of such equipment… you could certainly present this as evidence of consensual approval by DTV/NDS. (Although you would have to also get eBay to confirm what I just said in writing… but they are obligated to cooperate with law enforcement, and do so without hesitation). Obviously, if these cards were altered to receive programming, then you would still have no legal defense… but I am going on the assumption of just selling a “virgin” or cancelled sub card.

From the Canadian standpoint… I too, am somewhat perplexed by the ruling of Chronis in Nova Scotia when it comes to cards. I am also under the belief that the court ruling was bogus on its face for ordering the return of the cards… but until/unless it is appealed, that is how it will stand. (The judge that ruled on the case either clearly had no idea what was being done with cards in the past…and apparently decided to take it upon himself to be different). Unfortunately, you cannot use the eBay example above in Canada… as eBay has not been “directed” to end any DTV equipment auctions (yet) since the latest Canadian court ruling, so they can claim ignorance by stating that they work closely with DTV/NDS and law enforcement, (which is true), and have not been instructed to cease sales. And you can bet that if they ever do get instructed to stop all such sales, they will comply.

One fact we do know for certain. It is fact that the RCMP, Customs and local law enforcement have indeed seized cards at the various borders, as well as at the shops of dealers, as they saw fit to go after.

Now, from my understanding, if the cards are stopped at the border, Customs (supposedly) ships the cards back to their “lawful owner” (which is DTV, so they say). I say “supposedly” because I do not work for them, so I cannot say with any certainty… but this is the procedure I have been told by a Customs agent. I have yet to ever hear about Customs selling them at any of their auctions, so I tend to believe that they really do send them back to DTV.

But as for the RCMP and local law enforcement… I have no knowledge of them ever sending cards back to DTV at any time, other than to determine if they had been altered or tampered with to receive broadcasting. With this in mind, there would have to be an incredible amount of cards held in storage clear across Canada. (So I thought).

But when GS2 pointed out in this thread…
http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=131355
…that he recently purchased “12 DTV access cards from the Government of Canada Crown asset website”… things become more and more unclear from a legal standpoint. Firstly, I do not know if these cards (in the auction) were sold under the “proceeds of crime” act, but I assume they were. And if so, the cards would not have gone back to the original owner… but of course he/she could have bid on them at the auction. But one has to wonder WHY it is that they ended up in the auction at all, if they are “supposed” to be sent back to DTV!?! Is this a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing? Another “mistake”? Or is this a case of the Government of Canada ignoring laws that they are an intimate part in their creation of? Either way you look at it, if the Government of Canada is allowed to sell them in Canada back to Canadians, then it would appear that it is legal to own and sell them in Canada, period. (At least you would have a great argument in a court of law, if it came to that.) But of course, the Government of Canada could plead that is was all a “mistake”… but just how many “mistakes” are they entitled to have before being held accountable for them?

And just how many times can any entity be allowed to make profits off the sale and resale of DTV equipment? After all, Brad at Incredible bought his equipment fair and square, then Bell (or business associates of Bell) sues him right and left for what amounts to a mistake on their part in the first place. If they didn’t want them to be resold in Canada, then they shouldn’t have sold them “in Canada”… right? And if the cards were “supposed” to go back to DTV/NDS, then they shouldn’t have been included in any sale, other than to DTV/NDS themselves… right?

Theoretically, this could go in a loop indefinitely. The RCMP can seize DTV equipment in their investigations, and then later on, resell them back to the public. Then later on, seize those same cards again (if they happen upon them), and resell them again. And so on and so on. Hell, that’s the kind of business I would like to be a part of. Being able to profit from the sale of goods I did not pay for, and being legally entitled to take those goods back into my inventory without paying for them (again), and resell them (again & again). They must have taken the Bell 101 course of unlawful business tactics.

One thing is certain… how could any Canadian reasonably know if it is legal or not to own or sell DTV receivers and access cards when the Government apparently doesn’t know either. And if the Government isn’t held accountable for their breach of the law, then Joe Citizen can’t be held accountable either. Fair is fair. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise. (At the very least, it certainly should make a good defense in court, in my humble opinion… although I am no lawyer)

PS: GS2… dunno if you thought about this or not… but it might not be a bad idea to forward copies of all documents of your recent auction purchase to Brad, his lawyer, and the Legal Rights website as well. (If you are willing) It just might prove invaluable in the future proceedings.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi ELF-CO,

Just to make you aware, the sale of receivers to incredible did NOT include any cards. The salesman was asked about this but he clearly stated that they had already been sold. Yet Bells lawyer McKenzie has defended his client NDS and stated that the cards belong to them. If they belong to them (I know they don't) then why did his own client sell them instead of sending them back to what their own lawyer claims is the rightful owner.

So there is much more to come out of this Bell ExpressVu sale than meets the eye. McKenzie has presented a 490 in from of the court in Vally field claiming my cards back for his client NDS. Yet the judge in my case was clearly convinced by invoices we presented showing their sale directly from DirecTV® to an agent and then to me as PROOF that they were mine.

What I wonder is what proof Billy Chronus presented in Court about ownership. This has been fought by other defendants and WON yet Billy never contacted any of us with this question. If he had we could have put him in contact with at least 2 lawyers who have won these cases. And I doubt that if he did not do his homework at this point that he will take any steps to appeal and make this important distinction.

Because in my mind this decision is really a decision on his guilt ultimately and having a judge rule this way gives him little chance of not being found guilty when his trial come up. But he does not even seem to realize this. A party contacted me to say how unfortunate it was (a party who knows him) but he made no mention of appeal or even of any recognition of how this could ultimately affect his trial.

This is a terrible shame in a province that had one of the first rulings on this issue in the Stan Leblanc case with Mr. Justice Haliburton. With that kind of jurisprudence you really have to wonder what kind of a defence to this wrongful allegation he presented, if any.

With the vast pool of information available from me on legal-rights.org, one has to wonder where this guy is in his own mind?http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

He never once emailed me to get ANY information at all.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
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/freedomblack.gif

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!

[TheProfessor]

Thanks for the informitive replys. I understand that our discussion here holds no legal weight. I am just looking for general opinion.

I am looking at an HU now. This is what the property states:

This card is the property of NDS ltd. and must be returned upon request.

It does not state that is cannot be sold or traded, just that if they demand it reutrned, you must return it. Of course it does not state it cannot be altered or tampered with either, but we all know better...:R

In retro, its like Dave lets me use his property, and expects me to keep up with it until he decides I cannot use it. I mean, if it is his property, Why does he not handle his business a little differently so that this matter is clear. I guess confusion gives him more power over a situation he realy cannot control.

[ELF-CO]

TTRK:
Sorry… I didn’t mean to imply that Brad was sold cards along with the receivers… I was actually referring to other instances (so I understand), where both cards and receivers have been sold in the past. Or am I wrong, and this is the only instance of selling Bell has done?

TheProfessor:
That argument won’t wash with me, or my attorneys. I could care less what the card says on the back. There was simply no way I could know what the card said on the back, as it was enclosed with the systems when I bought them. I signed no contract with DTV, or any of their representatives with regards to these cards or receivers, and the bottom line is, I OWN THEM, period! They can’t enforce an agreement like that when I didn’t agree to it. If they want them back, I’ll be happy to sell all my cards to them (for a hefty profit), but no way in hell they will get them from me otherwise without a fight.

[Jeet]

Many states have consumer protection legislation on the books which states that if a part of equipment is integeral to the operation of a piece of equipment and if the ownership of that part was not relayed to the consumer at time of sale then the consumer does not have to return that part.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Elf-co,

No you are right, card were a part of other sales by BEV in the past and to Incredible too. But in this case only there were no cards included because they were sold earlier, according to the salesman. But they have been included in the past and the CAM NUMBERS of these cards were written on each receiver along with the name, address and phone numbers etc of all the people who owned these BEFORE they repatriated them. That info was wrongly included with the receivers and given to Incredible who now own it.

So we can actually track down these cards and whether or not they were returned to NDS. But we both know the answer to that, its just that nobody can BS about it without showing the PROOF!!!

And I agree with both you and jeet on the ownership issue too.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
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/freedomblack.gif

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!

[ELF-CO]

TTRK:
Considering that:
1) Bell has never (to anyone’s knowledge) returned cards to DTV/NDS, and…
2) A Government agency recently sold cards to the public, rather than returning them to DTV/NDS

Don’t you think that the above would be grounds for appeal in the Chronis in Nova Scotia case? (At least with regards to where the cards should go anyways) This is, of course, assuming that they even attempt to defend that aspect of the case.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Elf-co,

Sure absolutely that is clear grounds. But I am not sure that he really needs additional grounds seeing that the judge ruled to return them BEFORE he has had a trial of the issue to establish his innocence or guilt. What if he is NOT guilty and what if he does not want to reveal his strategy for trial and that part of that strategy is to show that the cards were lawfully purchased by him from DirecTV® or NDS. The law gives us the right to remain silent until EVERYONE else has spoken and that may well have been compromised had he testified (which I assume his lawyer would not let him do as is appropriate at this stage).

I say "what if" because I believe that this finding is tantamount to finding him guilty of the crime too and this BEFORE he has even been tried.

How can and why should ANY judge be in such a hurry to return the cards anywhere? This determination is NORMALLY made by what is called a 490 hearing which takes place when anyone, even Billy Chronis himself, wants good returned after a trial. Then if someone else claims ownership, there is a legal case that is fought over that as a separate issue but that is done AFTER a trial and possibly the reason is partly because to give them back BEFORE a trial, infers guilt. That is the appropriate forum for these arguments and someone is pulling a fast one here.

But be that as it may, Billy Chronis had better appeal this ruling for his own good because by the ruling this Judge is telling the trial judge (even if it is scheduled to be the same judge who could die in an accident or become deathly ill) that Billy is guilty of the CRIME.

And this is terribly unfair. But when unfairness happens you must deal with it NOW.

In most of these cases, that determination is certainly not appropriate if he is in fact "not Guilty" of any charges made. that would rest with proof that the parties would supply as well as case law and property laws in that Province.

And there have been several rulings by courts for both Mr. Angus and Mr. Gold, that the cards belong to the defendant. In addition, most Provinces have rules of PROPERTY ownership and law on the books in ANY matter and so ownership can be determined within the normal law.

Ownership of property is often contested and is an important issue in any court.

But you are right in what you say and there are therefore ample grounds on which to base an appeal and furthermore if that delays the trial this may WELL be advised since the Charter issue , if won by us, may well cause the crown to put a stay on all cases until this is reached a final determination. What is the use of holding a trial if the results will be rejected by a already made ruling. The moment a judge rules in our favor on this in any court that strikes the law totally until its reversed, if it is. So he would be well advised to appeal but the problem is that I do not know of anyone he has or is communicating with. If he was in communication he would have been given winning case law in this issue. Nobody wants to see a ruling against when hard battles have already been fought and won on this issuehttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

WHERE THE HELL IS HE??????????????????

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
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/freedomblack.gif

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!

[ELF-CO]

Maybe an appeal has already been filed, but I have not heard anything so far. But I think you are right... he had better do it. I really can't see how a judge can rule to send something anywhere, if it is supposed "evidence" yet to be ruled upon.

I suppose it is possible that they are looking at the DTV equipment as a completely separate issue, but from my perspective, any such equipment seized should be considered as "assets". And as such, until a determination has been made if any laws have been broken... those assets should be safe guarded to protect both the crown and the defendant. (Frankly, it just makes sense) Why the rush to send the cards anywhere is beyond me... very strange.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Elf-Co,

No you are absolutely right any there is only ONE purpose of a seizure and that is in support of an investigation into criminal activity. In other words, evidence.

If the defendant has not yet been tried, then this evidence may be needed in a trial. What if for example, he wants to have HIS experts study the card with a goal of REFUTING the Crowns "expert testimony." While that may probably be an employee of the "supposed Victim" as the Judge said in my case or whomever it is, how can his evidence be refuted if the evidence is no longer available. They can say that the card was modified for the purpose of "signal theft" but they say that about every card even when its not true as I have seen in MORE than one case.

This really gets interesting if you let your mind wander. Will the judge accept what this witness, who has a clear motive for being there, will say. Will the defendant NOT have the right to cross examine the witness "a Card" for example. Are we now down to one way testimony and we will convict people based on THAT???


Think about it. This card is modified by the second when its in a receiver. It is constantly getting data and that data modifies it constantly. What if that card was in a receiver and that is in fact the ONLY reason it was modified. Or what if the DirecTV® witness LIED. How could that be proven if the card is no longer available. I do not think Canada has yet digressed to a total police State where there is no cross examination or proof necessary to convict. At least I hope not. But currently it does seem that anything is possible under the current government. We have a constant erosion of our systems and institutions but gee, not that quickly. Someone may notice if its too fast.

And is Kilfoyle (the NDS witness who may not appear since NDS are accused of being the worlds largest PIRATES by Canal plus and where the written testimony of Oliver Kômmerling says YES NDS did do this supported as well by other testimony) or the new DirecTV® witness (unknown at this time) be so expert as for the defendant not be able to be cross examine as to what he says about the card.

How can a good independent witness, who may be for example a university professor teaching smart card technology, possibly study what the expert says by studying the card if it is no longer available and is returned to NDS.

No something weird is going on here and the "evidence" must be available for a trial. How is this even possible.

Anyhow I really wonder what is happening and if this has occurred to the defendant and his legal team? Or does he have one?

Anyhow there is a problem here and its seems serious but without the benefit of direct communication with Billy or his lawyer we are only speculating or believing newspaper stories about what happened. And of Newspapers on Cape Breton they say the only thing they are good for is to WRAP FISH ENTRAILS. I don't think that is quite true but I sure wish we knew what this is all abouthttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

And yes I wonder why there seems to be such a HURRY? One does expect that they do have "EVIDENCE LOCKERS" and that these are safe to store the "EVIDENCE" until after the trial is over.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
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/freedomblack.gif

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!

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Elf-Co,

No you are absolutely right any there is only ONE purpose of a seizure and that is in support of an investigation into criminal activity. In other words, evidence.

If the defendant has not yet been tried, then this evidence may be needed in a trial. What if for example, he wants to have HIS experts study the card with a goal of REFUTING the Crowns "expert testimony." While that may probably be an employee of the "supposed Victim" as the Judge said in my case or whomever it is, how can his evidence be refuted if the evidence is no longer available. They can say that the card was modified for the purpose of "signal theft" but they say that about every card even when its not true as I have seen in MORE than one case.

This really gets interesting if you let your mind wander. Will the judge accept what this witness, who has a clear motive for being there, will say. Will the defendant NOT have the right to cross examine the witness "a Card" for example. Are we now down to one way testimony and we will convict people based on THAT???


Think about it. This card is modified by the second when its in a receiver. It is constantly getting data and that data modifies it constantly. What if that card was in a receiver and that is in fact the ONLY reason it was modified. Or what if the DirecTV® witness LIED. How could that be proven if the card is no longer available. I do not think Canada has yet digressed to a total police State where there is no cross examination or proof necessary to convict. At least I hope not. But currently it does seem that anything is possible under the current government. We have a constant erosion of our systems and institutions but gee, not that quickly. Someone may notice if its too fast.

And is Kilfoyle (the NDS witness who may not appear since NDS are accused of being the worlds largest PIRATES by Canal plus and where the written testimony of Oliver Kômmerling says YES NDS did do this supported as well by other testimony) or the new DirecTV® witness (unknown at this time) be so expert as for the defendant not be able to be cross examine as to what he says about the card.

How can a good independent witness, who may be for example a university professor teaching smart card technology, possibly study what the expert says by studying the card if it is no longer available and is returned to NDS.

No something weird is going on here and the "evidence" must be available for a trial. How is this even possible.

Anyhow I really wonder what is happening and if this has occurred to the defendant and his legal team? Or does he have one?

Anyhow there is a problem here and its seems serious but without the benefit of direct communication with Billy or his lawyer we are only speculating or believing newspaper stories about what happened. And of Newspapers on Cape Breton they say the only thing they are good for is to WRAP FISH ENTRAILS. I don't think that is quite true but I sure wish we knew what this is all abouthttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

And yes I wonder why there seems to be such a HURRY? One does expect that they do have "EVIDENCE LOCKERS" and that these are safe to store the "EVIDENCE" until after the trial is over.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
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/freedomblack.gif

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!

[TheProfessor]

Off-topic here... To The Real King!!, you are one typing (and long winded) MutherF*.... (Excuse Me):) Thanks for your time.