Need Insight For a Law Paper

[tiggity]

Hi, i am in grade 12 of high school, and am currently taking Canadian Law as one of my subjects. We have a essay to do about different Canadian Laws, and i chose directv in Canada and the issues that go with it, because i like my tv :) so i was wondering because there is so much about it especially on legal-rights.org, what specific issued do you think would be best to talk about, i already am gonna talk about how the supreme court ruling infringes our rights.

Thanks
tiggity



Hi Tiggity,

You may want to talk about how the Supreme Court overturned about 17 other rulings that ruled the opposite way and how the "absolute Prohibition" that they arrived at after a confusing "english lesson " on the issue was nowhere to be found in the law. Obviously had parliament meant an "Absolute Prohibition" they would not have hinted at it, they would have stated that plainly. The object of LAW is not to have conveluted interpretations made some 11 years later (different government now) as plain clear words avoid interpretations that could lead to errors and injustices. The whole thing is an outrage especially when its a unanimous decision on a most confusing issue. Confusing enough to have had 2 Provincial Appeals Courts (the highest courts in the land except for the supreme court) rule in a diametrically opposite way. They ruled is was 100% legal.

You can see the ruling itself (very conveluted) at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/SCRrulingcanam.html

The RC act on which it is based at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/Laws/RC_Act.html

Along with most of the rulings that were made by other courts that completely oppose what the SC found.

While the SC can do this and get away with it, doing this kind of thing does not bode well for the future of democracy or law in Canada. Basically it says that the ordinary citizen cannot rely on what a law SAYS since it could be interpreted some other way by the SC when they overturn not one, not 5 but 17 other courts including the highest courts, save them. Remember that many people sit in JAIL with rulings made by courts 3 levels below them. So these are NOT trivial courts, they often put people away for 20 years and more.

The creating such a paper and seeing how the professor and fellow students view this would be VERY interesting.

Best Regards

To The REAL king!!

[Dean_M_Love]

...research Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a particularly interesting contrast is to compare the restrictions in the RadioCommunications Act with those in the Tobacco Act that were overturned (RJR Reynolds)...in that case the law prohibited the advertising of tobacco in Canada by tobacco companies, and that was found to be an infringement of our Charter rights, so surely the right to choose what to watch on TV must be a much more serious right than that of a large canadian corporation to sell a product to people that has been proven to kill you.

You also might want to research what other countries have or had similar bans on foreign TV, such as the Nazis...and also be sure to throw in Keith Spicers (former CRTC Chairman) "...the Western world has spent 40 years telling the Russians it was immoral to block broadcasts, we're certainly not going to start doing that in Canada..."

[toddgee24]

thanks Dean

[Mel]

Originally posted by Dean_M_Love
[B
You also might want to research what other countries have or had similar bans on foreign TV, such as the Nazis[/B]

Also Iran
http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/16/iran.satellite.reut/

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by tiggity
Hi, i am in grade 12 of high school, and am currently taking Canadian Law as one of my subjects. We have a essay to do about different Canadian Laws, and i chose directv in Canada and the issues that go with it, because i like my tv :)

Tiggity,

When you get the first few pages done, post it here. I bet you will double the text with comments and facts added by readers here. If you can't get an A+ on your paper by leveraging the knowledge here, you just are not trying! :)

[DJChaos]

imagine the bibliography on such a paper :)

[tiggity]

thanks for all the help and ideas guys, it aint do until mid december so i probably wont start it until the end of this month, ill post what i got when i do it.

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by DJChaos
imagine the bibliography on such a paper :)

Yeah... That is true! He will have comments, perceptions and facts from people that have been to the Supreme Court, and very likely, will be there again. I'll bet no other student will have that in thier report!

[Jeet]

Here is something I wrote a while back, it may be a bit dated, but the relevant sections, acts and case law is still valid:

Ok this is going to be a long post but I have no choice.

The RCMP press release, well I am going to quote from it:

"In the past, there was some confusion about whether foreign DTH systems were illegal or not. However, a November 1997 Federal Court of Appeal decision upheld the Radiocommunication Act, confirming that such systems are illegal. "

Ok what that says is before we had no idea whether American DSS systems were illegal or legal in Canada but a court case has recently settled that question once and for all, and that is they are illegal. Two things here:

1) Illegal matters are criminal and therefore fall under the Criminal Code and under the purview of the RCMP and the court who's decision is binding on the whole nation is the Supreme Court of Canada.

2) The case the RCMP are talking about was held in the Federal Court of Canada (a different court than the Supreme Court of Canada). The Federal Court of Canada is a regulatory court and it hears matters relating to such things as tax law, customs law, etc. IT DOES NOT HEAR MATTERS RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW.

Now the case that the RCMP are referring to is know as the Expressvu vs. Northstat case and it was heard in 1997. Expressvu sued Northstat, which was providing people with U.S. phone numbers and addresses so they could subscribe to the American service. Expressvu argued that this is not permitted under the Radio Communications Act. They stated that Northstat violated RCA section 9(1)(c). The RCA states that if someone is found in violation of section 9(1)(c) then the party which is harmed by the actions can claim civil damages from the party. Expressvu was doing just that. RCA section 9(1)(c) states

9. (1) No person shall

(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal . . otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal...

What this means is that in Canada you can not decode an encrypted signal unless you get permission from someone who has permission to distribute that signal in Canada. Now this section can be interpreted as having two meanings:

1) It is meant to prevent people from decoding signals that are being transmitted by people who have permission to transmit that signal in Canada, unless the person decoding the signal first receives permission from the person transmitting the signal.

2) It is meant to prevent people from decoding signals unless they are able to get permission from the person who is transmitting that signal. But in order to give that permission the broadcaster of the signal must first have permission to broadcast that signal in Canada.

Interpretation number 1 protects the interests of those companies who have obtained the necessary permits to broadcast that signal by being able to charge people for the right to decode that encrypted signal.

Interpretation number 2 takes the view that people can only decode those signals that have been authorized by the Canadian Radio Telecommunications Act (CRTC). All signals are being monitored by government, does that not seem to fly in the face of a free and open democratic society.

Well anyways I have given you two interpretation of section 9(1)(c), so what is the correct interpretation? Well no one knows what the correct interpretation is because the RCA does not say so. The judge in Express vs. Northstat wrote:

"The Radio Communications Act itself does not set out an authoritative statement of purpose which the Court can consider in determining the intended application of s. 9(1)(c) of the statute. The Court is left to infer the purpose of the statute and the application of s. 9(1)(c) in effecting that purpose and in doing so may consider the scheme of the legislation, the material conditions existing when it was first enacted and any subsequent amendments." [Expressvu vs. Northstat Page 15]

The Judge in the Expressvu case concluded "that paragraph 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act must be read to provide an absolute prohibition against the decoding of encrypted subscription program signals unless they emanate from a lawful distributor in Canada and that distributor authorizes their decoding." [Page 17] So he went for interpretation number 2 above of section 9(1)(c) of the RCA.

Now then the million dollar question, but an absolute prohibition is a violation of an individual basic rights and therefore is unconstitutional? Well in this case the judge’s decision is and maybe the judge’s decision is not. The important point is that the defendant has to raise that issue, the court will not raise it for him. In this case Northsat did not raise that issue and the judge himself even said: "But, I repeat, absent a Charter challenge, the Charter cannot be used as an interpretive tool to defeat the purpose of the legislation or to give an effect Parliament clearly intended it not to have." That is the judge had to decide what the meaning of section 9(1)(c) was and in order to do that he had to postulate what Parliament's whole intention was in passing the RCA section 9(1)(c). After analyzing this the judge of course conclude that section 9(1)(c) was intended by Parliament to provide an absolute prohibition of the decoding of encryption signals unless you can get permission from someone who is authorized to broadcast that signal in Canada. And because the judge views that this was the intention of section 9(1)(c) by Parliament he can not change the intention of that section even if it is unconstitutional. He can only change the intention of the section if the defendant were to argue that interpreting section 9(1)(c) to be an absolute prohibition would be unconstitutional. If the defendant does not argue that is unconstitutional then the judge has no choice but to interpret the section the way he feels Parliament intended it to be interpreted, even if that interpretation is unconstitutional. Now many are arguing that the judge in this case is even saying that an absolute interpretation is unconstitutional because why else would he specifically state: "But I repeat, absent a Charter challenge, the Charter cannot be used as an interpretive tool to defeat the purpose of legislation or to give the legislation an effect Parliament clearly intended it not to have." [Page 18] Well the judge could have two reasons for saying this:

1) He does believe that an absolute prohibition is unconstitutional; or
2) Whether an absolute prohibition is unconstitutional was not considered because the defendant did not raise the issue. So therefore because it was not raised and considered no one can say that this judge agrees or disagrees that an absolute prohibition is unconstitutional.

So based on all the above the judge ended up ruling the way he did and Expressvu believes that American DSS systems are illegal in Canada. Oh one important point that deserves mentioning, Expressvu vs. Northstat is a CIVIL case and the RCMP can only enforce CRIMINAL matters and CRIMINAL cases. So then how can they go around enforcing this CIVIL judgement?? Well they are, actually they have just released a press release that is all.

One more thing what does this case have to do with tampered/test/pirate cards. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The judge in Expressvu vs. Northstat said the following:

"piracy or theft of the signals of U.S. based DBS providers through the use of counterfeit chips or cards designed to permit a user to receive the signals in decoded form without payment for the services is not at issue in this law suit." [Expressvu. vs. Northstat Page 8]

So my question to you is, "Is it legal or illegal in Canada to watch Directv with a 'tampered' card?" Don't tell me that it is illegal because the RCMP says it is on http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rcmpbold.pl/html/satellite-e.htm?satellite
The press release on this site only refers to the Expressvu vs. Northstat case which only dealt with Canadians subscribing to American Satellite Services by acquiring a U.S. address and a U.S. phone number. The answer is simple, The Supreme Court of Canada has not ruled on the matter so therefore THERE IS NO CONCRETE ANSWER. However a few provincial courts have ruled on the matter and here is what they have said.

In the Criminal Code section 327(1) states that

"Every one who, without lawful excuse ... manufactures, possesses, sells or offers for sale or distributes any instrument or device . . the design of which renders it primarily useful for obtaining the use of any telecommunication facility or service, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the device has been used or is or was intended to be used to obtain the use of any telecommunication facility or service without payment of a lawful charge therefor, is guilty of an indictable offence. . . . "

Keep in mind that the above section of the Criminal Code says "the use of any telecommunication facility or service". So therefore using test cards to acquire Directv with paying for it is illegal in Canada - WRONG. Here is what Justice Klebunc in R. vs. Ereiser, May 16, 1997, said regarding that very assertion: "the underlying purpose of s. 327(1), which is protect the proprietary rights of persons legally entitled to provide a telecommunication service. . . . If the legislators intended s. 327 to pervasively interfere with the fundamental liberties and rights of Canadians, that intention had to be expressed in the clearest of terms. Section 327 in my opinion does not do so." [Page 75] Basically hear what the judge is saying is that if legislation is meant to be interpreted in such a way that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then it must be written clearly so that it can be interpreted that way. If it is not written clearly then it can be interpreted in such a way that it violates the Charter. Now keep in mind even if a law is written clearly and it violates the Charter, the law can still and must be struck down by a Judge if challenged in court, unless of course the law was passed by a Parliament or Legislature by invoking the not-withstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The not-withstanding clause is a provision that permits Parliament or Legislators to pass laws that violate the basic Freedoms of the Charter and a court can not rule the law is unconstitutional. In the case where a law is passed using this clause, it must be renewed every 5 years or the law is no longer valid. This is how Quebec gets all its language laws passed. Any ways back to satellites.

He went on to further state that "I conclude that no offence arises under s. 327 unless the telecommunication facility or service in question is authorized by law and the provider is lawfully entitled to a fee for the use thereof."

About the RCA and a "subscription signal" he said that "I am of the view that for a programming signal to qualify as a 'subscription programming signal' under ss. 9(1) and 10(1)(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."

In R. vs. Leblanc et al,, November 25th, 1997, the judge said that in areas of Canada that are close to the American border that no attempt has been made to block radio signals that emanate from U.S. cities:"No effort was ever made by Canadian authorities to block the reception of such signals [radio] nor, in my view, would any such effort be legal." So here is a judge saying that it would be illegal for the Canadian authorities to try to block the reception of a radio signal, which is not being broadcast in Canada, but further he is saying that if the authorities were to try to do that then the authorities would be the ones breaking the law. And of course people are going to say that this applies only to radio signals and not encrypted signals. I ask what is the difference between a radio signal, a tv signal and an encrypted signal?? In fact the judge himself also asks that question "Why should there be a distinction between radio signals which do not carry a visual image (as in short wave) and those which do (as in television)?"

He presents the story of Russia and the Eastern Block countries of Europe, which tried to block radio and television signals emanating from the West. He comments that "such interference is clearly incompatible with freedom of speech and the freedoms which we have always taken for granted in this country." This of course is a point I made very early on above regarding the interpretation of section 9(1)(c) of the RCA. Justice Haliburton in this case concluded that "before it would have been possible for an accused to commit an offence under that section [327(1) of the Criminal Code], there must have been a telecommunication service capable of being received by the equipment and for which there could have been a 'lawful charge'".

The judge also commented the following:

"An analogy might truly be drawn to a merchant who, having acquired goods for resale and having exhausted their efforts to sell, places the excess at curb side to be picked up by the garbage collector of the 'Sally Ann'. Once the material is deposited at curb side, normal citizens would assume that the merchant has abandoned any property interest in the material. The merchant can hardly be heard to complain of 'loss' of some item in which he claims a particular property interest if somebody else comes along and picks it up and makes use of it. On the particular facts alleged here, we have DIRECTV which is licensed to sell their satellite programming in continental USA and who are not lawfully authorized to sell that signal in Canada, complaining because receivers outside their broadcast area have found a way to pick up that signal. . . . Since the satellite signal is broadcast at large, the broadcaster has no special property interest in a signal disseminated over area where they have no authority to recover a fee."

CONCLUSION:

You have two judges in Canada, Justice Klebluc in Saskatchewan and Justice Haliburton in Nova Scotia both ruling that using a pirated/test/tampered card to watch Directv's programming is not a CRIMINAL OFFENCE in Canada under the various legislations, Criminal Code, Radio Telecommunications Code, Broadcasting Act, etc.

You have the Federal Court of Canada ruling that it is illegal to have American satellite systems. However Justice Klebluc and Justice Haliburton both ruled that it would be unconstitutional to interpret section 9(1)(c) of the RCA to provide an absolute prohibition on the decoding of encrypted signals. Further this case in the Federal Court of Canada did not deal with the issue of tampered cards whereas the two cases in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia did deal with pirated cards.

The RCMP in issuing their press release http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rcmpbold.pl/html/satellite-e.htm?satellite are relying on the Federal Court of Canada case, Expressvu vs. Northstat,

The RCMP can not make up their own laws, they have to live with the decisions that the Courts of Canada render. So therefore the RCMP can not state that American DSS satellites are illegal because the Federal Court of Canada said so. The courts of Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have both ruled they are NOT ILLEGAL. Further they have interpreted section 9(1)(c) of the RCA to mean that it only prohibits people from decoding those signals that are being broadcast by people who have received permission to broadcast that signal in Canada. They can only decoded that signal if they receive permission from the broadcaster first. Where the broadcaster is broadcasting outside of Canada and does not have permission to broadcast that signal into Canada, then people can decode that signal without permission all they want to. The Federal Court of Canada of course ruled that section 9(1)(c) of the RCA provides an absolute prohibition. But because Expressvu vs. Northstat was heard in the Federal Court of Canada and not in the Supreme Court of Canada, the decision is not binding on all the courts in Canada and so therefore each court in each province can rule which ever way they want too.

So therefore as of December 1, 1999, the following is true about DSS systems in Canada. There is no binding decision issued by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding American DSS systems, the Federal Court of Canada has no jurisdiction over provincial courts. Therefore in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia judges have ruled that it is NOT ILLEGAL to use pirated cards to watch Directv.

I have not been able to get the written decisions of the Judge in B.C. in the case last week so I have not been able to incorporate that judge’s comments in to this article.

[tiggity]

thanks for the info

[toddgee24]

thanks for the ideas guys, and a big thanks to TTRK for the wealth of info on his site.

Individuals in Canada like to watch TV, because of a Supreme Court ruling, these individuals are now committing a crime if they are watching satellite TV if it is not provided by one of the two Canadian satellite providers in Canada. This infringes the rights of every Canadian and provides those two companies something that no other
Canadian Company has, no foreign competition.

On April 26th 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled: 9.(1) No person shall
(c)decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed
otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor
of the signal or feed; 10.(1)Every person who without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9, is guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not
exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or
to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand
dollars. This ruling made it illegal to decrypt foreign signals, however there are a few significant issues with the above ruling, the first and foremost being that the ruling infringes our freedom of expression, which is guaranteed in section 2b of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter clearly states that every Canadian has the fundamental freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. This would include such media as magazines, newspapers, movies and music. None of these forms of media have laws preventing you from watching a foreign movie, reading a foreign magazine or listening to a foreign band. Why? That is because it would clearly violate the rights and freedoms that the diverse population of Canada are guaranteed. And because of the diverse population of Canada, there is different programming that individuals will want to view, it may be programming from their home country before they moved to Canada, and because they are trying to stay with their roots, they are committing a crime, hardly fair to any Canadian. However, Canada is not the only country that has limited the freedom of expression, countries like Nazi Germany, and the Communist Soviet Union have did what Canada is now doing. And now that we can place Canada in the same category as those two countries, former Chairman of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Keith Spicer said on January 7,1995 “We have spent, this country and the western world has spent 40 years telling the Russians it was immoral to block broadcasts. We're certainly not going to start doing that in Canada. Canadians are free people and they should act freely.” So after this statement was made, the government clearly lied to us and infringed on our rights and freedoms when making it illegal to decode encrypted foreign signals.

Why would the government create such a law? In 1994 DirecTV started their satellite service in the United States, in the same year Bell announced the same type of service that would be available to Canadians, called Bell ExpressVu. Bell was unable to fulfill their word, and the launch of their service was delayed three years. In the fall of 1997, ExpressVu finally launches there service, but during the 3 year span from initially promising a service, until they finally launched it, there was an estimated 250 000 Canadians who had purchased DirecTV through the grey market. A term which means they are paying for a service which is not offered in Canada, the black market isn’t that big in Canada yet. Shortly after ExpressVu started their service, they promptly started a campaign against dealers and distributors that were selling the US service. However the lawsuits were quickly dropped because of a nationwide boycott of ExpressVu. As the black market for DirecTV picked up in the late 90’s, a term which means hacking the satellite system to receive all channels, ExpressVu started more lawsuits to try and stomp out their competition. The highest lawsuit being a $15 million lawsuit against Tedmonds Satellite, trying to stop what ExpressVu calls “illegal competition.” After 17 judges across Canada, including the highest provincial courts, and the Court of Appeals in both Ontario and BC, ruled that blocking a foreign signal would infringe our rights as Canadians, the Supreme Court of Canada thought otherwise. Somehow the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ExpressVu, agreeing with them that encrypted foreign signals are prohibited in Canada, although nowhere in the Canadian law does it state this. The law states in section 9. (1) No person shall (c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed. But even this law could not make DirecTV illegal in Canada, whether it be grey or black market, because DirecTV is not a lawful distributor. So somehow the Supreme Court of Canada clearly “misinterpreted” and even added to the law by creating an absolute prohibition on encrypted foreign broadcasts, that is nowhere to be found in our law. In doing this the Supreme Court made one company happy, and countless Canadians criminals.

Where does it go from here? Around the spring of 2003, the Charter challenge will take place to see if the law passed by the Supreme Court infringes our rights. There are three possible outcomes in this case, the first and most unlikely would be the Supreme Court ruling would stand, and our freedom of expression would still be limited. The second outcome would be that the Supreme Court ruling would be struck down altogether, making it legal for Canadians to view encrypted foreign programming whether it is in the grey or black market form. The third and most likely ruling would have the Supreme Court ruling struck down, but would allow the viewing of foreign encrypted signals if they are paid for through the grey market as a reasonable limit. This is the most likely outcome, and would make our laws just like the US.

In conclusion, the rights of every Canadian citizen are clearly being violated, and all this because Bell ExpressVu didn’t want any competition. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bell, helping them in a major way. They gave Bell something that no other Canadian company has, no foreign competition, although this came at a price, limiting the freedoms of every Canadian. It seems as if the Supreme Court would rather look out for a business then the citizens of Canada. One thing is for certain, no law will stop Canadians from watching DirecTV.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Todgee,

I believe your third scenario is invalid simply because the RC act does not currently differentiate between Grey or Black and in fact does not talk about them at all.

Since this has been contentious since 1996 and onward, the government should long ago passed a law that would pass muster with both the charter and the courts. (I believe they did that in 1991 and it was simply interpreted wrongly by the SCR).

But I guess the Liberals KNEW how the Supreme Court would rule when the issue eventually got there in 2002 some 7 years after the fact and 11 years after the law was passed. During that time Canadians needlessly (as it turns our) spent many hundreds of millions of dollars buying equipment that may have been made worthless by this ruling of the SCR which itself may infringe the Charter as the Supreme Court Ruled.

But to me it is clear that PARLIAMENT never intended the law the way it was interpreted, firstly because they did not mention any "absolute prohibition" which they surely would have had that been the intention and Secondly because they know full well that would offend the Charter and they were more than intelligent enough not to knowingly do that. This is parliament remember and it was widely debated by experienced legislators for several years.



The third and most likely ruling would have the Supreme Court ruling struck down, but would allow the viewing of foreign encrypted signals if they are paid for through the grey market as a reasonable limit. This is the most likely outcome, and would make our laws just like the US.



This ultimately may be what the law would need to be changed to in some variation but a reasonable limit under section 1 cannot be made of something that is not expressed in the law. And the USA has no "Absolute Prohibition" which American citizens would never stand for in a supposed democracy.

So the government may find itself in a difficult position and may eventually have to allow the Americans in if they wish to stop the black market. This type of law would not infringe the charter but its not a law that BEV could live with since they are used to nothing less than a competition free monopoly such as they have enjoyed in the telephone business for 50 years or so. That seems to be the ONLY way they can make money in an enterprise and the government seems more interested in that than it does in the rights of its citizens.

Remember that the attorney General intervened on the side of BUSINESS (BEV) and not on the side of its citizens in the last SC case.

The government definitely seem to have a very solid interest in the rights of the phone company over those of the 30 million Canadians who are citizens.

Usually that type of unnatural loyalty is bought and paid for.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

Extremely good posts for both yourself and Jeet.

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

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org"><font color="#FF0000" size="5"><strong><u>To </u></strong></font><font color="#FF4800" size="5"><strong><u>Th</u></strong></font><font color="#FF6200" size="5"><strong><u>e </u></strong></font><font color="#FF7002" size="5"><strong><u>RE</u></strong></font><font color="#FF9006" size="5"><strong><u>AL </u></strong></font><font color="#FFB508" size="5"><strong><u>Ki</u></strong></font><font color="#FFD014" size="5"><strong><u>ng!!</u></strong></font></a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.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 CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

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

[toddgee24]

hi TTRK, i wasnt totally sure about the third scenario, but when my teacher sat down and talked with me, she brought that up, so i included in the paper, im sure i could have researched that better, as you have proved what i wrote wrong. and as for the american part, what i was trying to say is it would be illegal to hack it no matter if it was a lawful distributor or not, thanks again for all the info on your site.