Statute of Limitations

[MercurE1]

Just wondering if anyone knows the statute of limitations for the purchase of illegal equipment, I know they can say we can prove you are testing today because you purcahsed equipment 5 years ago, but just kinda curious as to what some legal details around it are

Thanks

Merc

[crownvic]

Merc it's gonna be 2 years from when they found out of the alleged purchase,from what I understand.
Not from 2 years when you purcased or should I say allegedly purchased the so called illegal device.
that simply means they have 2 years to file a suit however it could go on much longer before you have a trial date.

[MercurE1]

Thanks for the update, i just thought like in murders they can only prosecute someone in a specified time frame, that is why i thought the time period started when i purchased the equipment.

Merc

[CARTERJ]

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectid/0566BBF3-858F-4E25-89F7A06B61F9CEF5/catID/DCA1178C-B579-49DC-AECDFCB8A7E9A20B

Good to know this stuff anyway.:)

[crownvic]

Originally posted by CARTERJ
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectid/0566BBF3-858F-4E25-89F7A06B61F9CEF5/catID/DCA1178C-B579-49DC-AECDFCB8A7E9A20B

Good to know this stuff anyway.:)

:) Good info Carter,at least I was Right on the State that I'm in.
I would say they are suing for damages,so in some states that could be up to 6 years. They could still take their sweet time after they filed,no matter what the Statute of limitations are.
Where is Geo2 when you need him...;)
He can clarify this a little better.:gg

[ELF-CO]

Originally posted by MercurE1
I just thought like in murders they can only prosecute someone in a specified time frameMerc… you must mean UN-like in murders, right? (There is no statute of limitations on murder anywhere in North America, as far as I am aware).

Anyway, this link may help you out as well:
http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=132633

CARTERJ, that is a very good link example. People located in the U.S. would be wise to read it.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Guys,

Since DirecTV™ seem to sue under a wide range of statues (as many as they can) and as only some of these have any statute of limitations, that is not going to dismiss the other charges.

It is possible that they will use some things like the 'DMCA" prior to its actually coming into effect and they may be beyond the limit with other things but some charges will still remain. Its up to your lawyers to have the ones that do not apply thrown out and then see what remains. But these issues WONT throw everything out, just possibly some of the charges. But lawyers know this and would take action to dismiss these as a matter of course.

DirecTV™ do this to just make it look worse and possibly be more intimidating but since they are invalid they wont hold. But its no use applying a lot of time and effort to that since your lawyer will be aware of it. It does not hurt to remind him though.

They just throw a lit of crap up at the barn door and hope some of it ill stick. But don't put too much faith on these technical issues because they wont be overall winnwers.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

So wjile this may reduce the charges, some will still remain valid.

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

Our Deepest Condolences one year later too (http://www.legal-rights.org/condolences.html) <-- Click here Please


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

[url=http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html] [color=lime][size=4][b]Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE [/b

[m_jonis]

Perhaps someone can explain this to me:

If DTV obtained "the list" approximately May of 2002, then wouldn't THAT start the countdown on the statute of limitations?

I realize there's a 2 year PLUS "investigation" time period, but seriously if DTV is going to continue to send letters until the end of 2010, I'd think that 8 years is WELL above and beyond any sort of 2 year "and then some" time frame.

Or am I missing something?

[crownvic]

They have a reasonable amount of time in this case to file suit. If they try after it will get thrown out,time is on their side after they have filed suit..
So this question remains ..
When did they find out about the alleged purchase?
DO they ever Lie?:K

[m_jonis]

I would say the date would be May 2002 (at least in the draft summons i received that was the date DTV alleges they came into possession of evidence).

[mmadmikes1]

I am no Lawyer,but everyone is talking state law and I was under the impression that DTV was filing federal suits. If this is true you will all need to start reseaching Federal Law.

[m_jonis]

Oops. I stand corrected.

Draft filing says May of 2001.

That coincides about to the date that Vector Technolgies website went bye-bye.

Although I'd STILL like to know how DTV is going to be able to convince a judge that evidence obtained in May of 2001 (basically DTV "found out that the user bought something in 2001" and then 9 years later say it doesn't somehow "violate" the statute of limitations.