Why can't someone defend themselves

[thegreenhacker]

Defendants with much more serious charges have defended themselves. Maybe anyone with an avg. I.Q. with the proper info. can call Daves bluff and go to court. How hard could it be to disprove just because you bought a programmer your not stealing daves signal.If anyone can point us in the right direction on where to get info on legal procedure that would be helpful.Hiring a lawyer will cost $ and they always seem to talk their clients into settling.

[SatStuffDirect]

Like the old saying goes:

" A man who defends himself has a fool for a client "

[razorburn]

That's what I'm going to do. If you have half a brain, you can come up with enough facts to place doubt in the jury's mind. Besides like everyone says, DTV doesn't want these matters to ever get to court because there case is based solely on a sales receipt for the purchase of a LEGAL device. Also unless you signed for the device, they don't even have proof that the product arrived.

The device only falls in to the illegal category if you use that device to gain access to DTV's signal. Even the subject lines of the "letters" state that. Also, if you had a subsciption (especially with PPV purchases) you can create more doubt by saying "why would I pay for a subscription if I had unlimited access to all channels?"

I would like to hear from anybody who has called DTV's bluff.

[thegreenhacker]

Originally posted by SatStuffDirect
Like the old saying goes:

" A man who defends himself has a fool for a client "

I thought that's for criminal cases

[Entropy]

I totally agree. If they have little no evidence against you then it will not take a genius for you to defeat them. It is just a matter of learning about the procedures of civil law. I would guess that most people could research this information. If enough people do this then I would bet that the letters would stop. Even if you did by some chance lose then it would be also difficult for them to prove that you stole 3500 dollars in service from them.

[Inspired]

if you defend yourself and lose, then it could very easily become a criminal case as there now would be evidence that could be used against you to file a criminal case.

remember, in a civil case it is "preponderance of the evidence" which equates to about 51%. so if DTV can present enough facts to outweigh your rebuttal by 2%, you lose. keep in mind, if there is enough evidence to get it into court, just because you say you're not guilty doesn't cut it. yes, you are innocent until proven guilty but if the accuser presents enough evidence to a jury and you cannot give enough of a defence to swing that 2%, you are going to lose.

can you represent yourself? absolutely you can. but just keep in mind the moment you take that first step, if the hill is steeper than you thought, not only are you going to trip, but you are not going to stop until you hit the bottom. at least having a lawyer represent you lets him take a look at that hill and advise you whether you should even consider taking that step.

think of it like car insurance...no one likes to pay every month and seemingly get nothing in return, but the moment you have an accident, you're glad that you've got coverage. the lawyer is the same thing. you think you can defend yourself but the moment something unexpected happens you are going to regret the day you decided not to pay for a lawyer.

good luck in whatever you decide to do.

[morgana]

Everyone has probably watched enough Perry Masson or Law and Order showes to have some kind of perverted view about what the courts are like. The one thing you will assume to be true is that you both will start on equal footing, and that definitely will not be true if you try to defend yourself. The judge will soon get tired and then pissed at you making little mistakes along the way, and he, at the end of the day is the one who will rule.

The courts are not classrooms for you to learn, and he will not likely appreciate any delays you cause. DTV's lawyers will then also try many oibscure things that you will not be aware of and even quote many laws, that you will not be up to date on. All of this will make you look like an odiot in front of the judge, who has to take what you say as true or not. Why would you handicap your case that way.

I guess if you can brief yourself on all the laws applicable and throughly learn all the proper procedures of the courts for filings and witness supeonas, you may well stand a chance of getting an equal start. But is that not a whole lot of work and gamble just to get on an even playing field?

It is not like you will be betting your freedom, so the judge may just make sure you pay a little more for ther lesson you may have to learn. Yes, this is just all part of human nature and has nothing to do with justice, but it does play a very important role in how you are taken by the court.

So do you still feel you can defend yourself just as easily as a lawyer can? If so, then do not let me or anyone else stop you.

[crownvic]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm

I can't represent myself even if i wanted,prozac and other mind altering medications prevent me from doing so.
But that's good cuz I'm also incompetent to even stand trial should the occasion ever arise.:gg :Z Besides it would'nt look good if I walked in in an ELVIS jumpsuit.
Hi morgana..:)

[thegreenhacker]

Thanks for the link

[crownvic]

Originally posted by thegreenhacker
Thanks for the link
Your welcome, there is a lot of good info there, it will at least start off the basics and get you familular with the procedures.

[crownvic]

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/index.cfm/catID/FCE46694-6BEB-4A80-89B9048DA9877F61#8F965511-320B-429E-AFF92326E148C549
Also greenhacker another alternate to going to court would be "Mediation" with both parties in agreement.
That is in the link above.

[REDx]

most of the real work takes place
before the trial. god i couldnt i
magine going thru a deposition
without a lawyer.i mean you dont
know what you have to answer and
what you dont have to answer.
there are allkinds of findings to
do.like what do you say when they
say your "fill in the blank"
said they watched a blacked out game
at your house.

[thegreenhacker]

What is the probability Dave reads this board and knows who all the posters are? And can use all your past post information against you ! I'm starting to wonder why people stop posting sometime after they deal with Dave on this lawsuit issue.Did they find out Dave uses info. on these boards and sites against the end user ? Someone please tell me that is NOT POSSIBLE.

[giveupdave]

Originally posted by thegreenhacker
What is the probability Dave reads this board and knows who all the posters are? And can use all your past post information against you ! I'm starting to wonder why people stop posting sometime after they deal with Dave on this lawsuit issue.Did they find out Dave uses info. on these boards and sites against the end user ? Someone please tell me that is NOT POSSIBLE.

They do read the boards, thats been proven. But I can't see how they could put a real name against a member here.

[JD490]

Civil Law suits always start out with the plaintiff not having much evidence. Its what he can get in discovery that will give the plaintiff a win or loose in court. Most law suits that don't settle will settle at this point during or just after discovery. This is when both sides know who is more then likely to win. You will only be able to defend yourself to a win in court if you can make it through discovery, and DirecTV has nothing more then what they started with.