Statue of Limitations .......

[totallyscrewed]

I can't find a suitable answer to these questions :

How long can an open ended threat remain intact ?

I recieved 1st letter way back in January 02, couple weeks later
second letter ...

Are the dates based on purchase or date ----, I mean, Dave found a mailing address?

Can this be drug out until they finally decide to file suit in say 2005?

I purchased a legitimate card reader way back in January of 2000
from whiteviper , I think , it has been so long I can remember what it even looked like anymore.

Thanks guys !

[ELF-CO]

Being a non-US resident, I am not completely current on US laws... however, if you do a search under the US Code (as I did) you may find this:

CHAPTER 119 - WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 119 - Sec. 2520
(Sec. 2520. - Recovery of civil damages authorized)

Part (e) Limitation:

A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation

This could certainly be interpreted in several ways... but I would go with the minimum assumption that this limitation would be two years since they first received records (or proof of purchase) of illegal devices in order to file suit for damages. (This could certainly be extended, if it took them a year to track you via the records they received, or if they had to go through extra-ordinary circumstances in order to trace the purchase, such as waiting for shipping documents from a third party shipper, etc.)

The burden would be on them to prove that they filed in a timely manner before the limitation if it came to that, and the judge would make the final determination in any event.

In the case with White Viper... I believe their bust was in April of 2001... but from that point forward, it would be hard to determine exactly when DTV had actual access to their records, receipts and whatnot. It would probably be quite safe to say that if they send you a letter of intent (for suit) in January 2002... they most likely have only used up a few months of that limitation (since the wording of "reasonable" is a hard one to define); I would seriously doubt that they will let the limitation lapse. So long as they file suit within the time frame, they are good to proceed with it, even if you try to drag it out longer to try and exceed the timeframe.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Totallyscrewed,

ELF-CO has it right and its hard to determine the date that you start counting from. But I would say that the date they first filed suit against the VENDOR would be a reasonable date and a court would agree that they did have the information to go against you by that date. They filed evidence of wrongdoing against the vendor, they had evidence that YOU bought. After all that is the same evidence they used against the vendor. So the DOCKET info that is listed on my docket page at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/DTV/dtvdocketpage.html

for the vendor concerned in your case is probably a safe date to use to start the count.

You will have to double check my logic with a lawyer but they certainly had the info then. If they go past the 2 years after that date, I would say this is a valid defence.

For instance in the group of White Viper et al (and there is a BIG bunch of defendants) the fist request for an ex-party restraining order is on 5/24/00. So that gives them until may 24 th this year for the two year limitation to expire.

What I don't know is do they have to file suit by then or just notify you that they believe they have a cause of action. Only a lawyer can answer that but I believe they are very close to the limit on these cases involving any of these defendants.

For any defendant you should be able to use the date they files which is after the raid and when the information or "evidence" against that defendant (and therefore all his customers) is in their possession. If they dally after that I believe its just too bad. They court does not allow them the luxury of taking their time to get to your name but rather the first date they had the data (opportunity). Please check with a lawyer on that and let us know. It could be very important info for many people as they seem to be sending much more letters nowhttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

But if its the time they have to FILE SUIT, they may be cooked in many cases. Please enquire for yourself but think of everyone by posting the important answer.

I don't think a civil action is COMMENCED by just a letter but rather by the actual filing of a suit with the court.

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!

[totallyscrewed]

AS always gentleman , I knew I would find your knowledge & advice perfect! I actually tried my alawyer today , but me thinks his important meeting was on the links. I will be in touch with him Monday or Tuesday of next week and I will post his thoughts.

Thanks again !!!!!!

[REDx]

well this was a tough one
so i ask my friend Joey.
she said that being that
the grounds for any action
has nothing to do with the
vendor. that only shows
when you purchased a device
not when you used it.
the device itself is not a
civil matter.it is only so
far as it may be used to
intercept the signal which
is a civil matter.
the date should be at the time
dtv was aware you recieved the
device.
there is no real way to prove that
date
so the clock most likely starts
on the date of the first letter.
this gets pretty confuseing even
then.depending on if you responded
to the letter.in some cases if you
didnt respond the time may be exstended.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Red,

That is total nonsense and it has nothing to do with if you respond or not. What has that got to do with THEIR opportunity to be aware that you may have bought someting or not. Read the damn law, its posted in this thread.

The time begins to count from the first date they had the OPPORTUNITY to know that you had a device they consider illegal. That reasonable opportunity as stated here:


A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation


is the date the information came into their POSSESSION. They cannot look the other way, so to speak, or ignore the file they have and say that time does not count.

So its pretty obvious if they got information on YOU from a VENDOR (say White Viper) in a raid, then that is when they first has REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. Give them a week for time to look at it and you have the info. They have 2 years from that date and if they take longer to file then I believe you have an excellent defence in that.

The dates they got this info is generally PROVABLE from the date they filed against that vendor because NOW they have evidence of a sale. If the VENDOR sold then SOMEONE PURCHASED and that purchase is what they act on. So the dates of these two events are IDENTICAL and can be found in the docket pages for most vendors here:

http://www.legal-rights.org/DTV/dtvdocketpage.html

This is not exhaustive and there may be some vendors missing but it does cover the vast majority of them.

I think you had better trade Joey in Red, because what she says is totally out of context to the question :)

You have to PROVE they had reasonable opportunity and the proof is that they filed against the VENDOR you bought from because they has some EVIDENCE. Or the Police did and that is where they got the information, in that RAID. But they may not have received the info on that day but the DAY they FILED against the vendor is the date that you can PROVE they had evidence. And that is the same "so called evidence" they are using against YOU. That is where they got your name and what you purchased and that is WHEN they discovered the possible violation. Before that they did not know you from ADAM.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]

Correct. As I said earlier (above), I can only foresee limited circumstances where they could exceed the time limits of the statute. One has to assume that they have had open access to these seized records within days or a few weeks of the raids. This being the case, they should only have a two year timeframe from that point, in which to file their cases against end-users. And either way, a judge would make that determination.

Three such possibilities of an extension being granted would be if:

1) The customer’s records, receipts, etc., were encrypted or hidden… and needed to be unencrypted or discovered, or for some other reason not made available until a later date. And then the later date would apply.

2) Those records were withheld from them for examination by extraordinary circumstance. (Such as the FBI seizing the records in the interim as an example)

3) If they needed a third party confirmation of the product(s) being received… such as by a shipper like UPS or Fed-Ex., and had to wait for a court order to release the shipping manifests in order to cross-reference the sales with the shipping addresses. Or if they had to wait for purchase confirmation and records from various banking institues such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, etc. (In which case, the date that all the needed materials were made available would be that date plus two years as the very limit of the statute)

I can’t see another reason to extend the due date beyond those mentioned excuses though. But as always, the judge would make a ruling on it accordingly.