at what point will they raid homes in canada? [Archive]

View Full Version : at what point will they raid homes in canada?

sugar ray

November 28th, 2002, 11:31 PM

just wondering at what point (if ever?) will raids begin in homes in canada?

i heard that one of the dealers in saskatchewan was a dealer based out of his home!

maybe it will NEVER get that far? scary times friends

Dean_M_Love

November 28th, 2002, 11:40 PM

TOMORROW!

Better start digging a secret cellar in the basement so the DTV watchers can hideout while the Gestapo rounds up "ILLEGAL" TV receivers....

Hail ExpressVu!

Hail ExpressVu!

Yes mine Fuhrer, ve vill not vatch ze illekal kontent no more.

morgana

November 29th, 2002, 07:08 AM

The law that was ruled on back in April 26 2002, has made it an offence to decrypt any foreign signals here in Canada. That does mean that if you watch DTV, you are breaking the law. So from that point on you could be arrested for doing so, whether it be in your home or where ever else you do this. The injunctions were expired as Bellexpressvu and others had said they were not planning to go off raiding places immediately. They almost kind of inferred that they knew we were seeking the Charter Challenge, and were waiting for that. The problem with inferred things are they are subject to changing.

BellExpressvu would not want to give up their chance to cause complete mayhem to the industry by doing raids and making it so people need to fear their TV viewing choices. As for the RCMP's stsatements before that they would not be pursuing the end user in the home goes, you have now seen them confiscate cards as they were coming into places to have them done up. To me that is going after the end user. So now we are seeing the Canadian version of the DTV letter campagn, that has been so popular in the USA. Yes we all should have some reasons to fear our police forces, as they are really hired out to try and force the government granted monopoly's bidding. I would have to say though that since all of this is still not so clear as to what they will charge people with and how it all will proceed.

I will say this though, everyone had better be supporting the Charter Challenge and I do not mean just in you views and votes but with donations, because this is the only method that will stop these tactics and once we start to see rulings in our favour then BellExpressvu loses all clout and the RCMP would again go back to doing proper work. This is why the push to get them to do raids and cause as much havoc as possible before any Charter ruling in the lower courts. The people of Canada need a win on this issue, or we will be forever being told what we can view and maybe soon even read.

newguyxxx

November 29th, 2002, 09:20 AM

It would be kinda funny from a Toronto residents point of view....cause they would have to raid every second house in just this area alone, including most of the local bars. I feel sorry for the older immigrants with Dishnetwork watching thier Portuguese soap operas when the RCMP come bangin on the door. Scarry times living in Canada.:o Get arrested cause your not watching Expressvu:R

To The Real King!!

November 29th, 2002, 10:17 AM

Listen here Mr. Dean,

ZISS is Kanatta, And Ven ze Freedom Comes, YOU VILL DO AS YOU ARE TOLD!!!

Signed,

Any Canadian liberal Politicohttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</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!

gunsmoke2

November 29th, 2002, 12:10 PM

They can include a home if they have reasons to obtain a search warrrant that included the home. They can execute a warrant at one location and if they find reasons to obtain from the first location they can get another warrant for another location.

GS2

GhostDog

November 29th, 2002, 01:23 PM

all they need to do is raid a couple homes of 'end users' and then report about it in the papers, maybe throw the offender in jail for a few days and the point will be made, people will start taking their dishes down...

newguyxxx

November 29th, 2002, 01:29 PM

maybe throw the offender in jail

Damn, i better warn my Grandmother :(

ekati

November 29th, 2002, 01:37 PM

I can see it now.....

Call 1-800-rat-out-your-neighbor for 2 free months of the ultimate7 pack on Smell Expressvu.

GhostDog

November 29th, 2002, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by newguyxxx
Damn, i better warn my Grandmother :(

sec 327 of the cc allows up to 2 years in jail per offence (for corporations) and 1 year (for individuals), so its not entirely impossible

To The Real King!!

November 29th, 2002, 09:50 PM

Sorry GhostDog,

But the Supreme Court Ruling applies ONLY to the RC act an NOT to the criminal code. The Canam SCR had nothing to do with the criminal code which is simply a straight theft affair. But look at what it says:

327(1) Every one whom without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, manufactures possesses, sells or offers for sale or distributes any instrument or device or any component thereof, 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 offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Notice anything familiar? Since it requires a LAWFUL CHARGE THEREFOR, that requires a LAWFUL DISTRIBUTOR and since DTV are not that, HOW could they convict under this law. They cannot use the gobbledegook of an ENGLISH or FRENCH language lesson here since NOTHING IN THE CC ties this up to any special type of conveluted "assisting the communications or broadcasting industry" in Canada. Its about "THEFT" and it requires that there be a LAWFUL CHARGE that could be collected by someone LAWFUL for it to be a lawful charge and therefore a "THEFT".. If DirecTV™ tried to collect that would NOT be LAWFUL since they are not authorized to collect and have been shown to NOT be lawful to sell or charge a LAWFUL CHARGE in Canada. So if there is no LAWFUL CHARGE then there simply is no theft. The right to receive under the cc does not apply in the way the Supreme Court stated it since that was a RC ACT ruling only!!

The Supreme Court already confirmed that in FULOP as Judge Klebuc stated. He said regarding the Dorgan ruling "

Madam Justice Dorgan relied on R. v. Ross (1988), 32 O.A.C. 47. There, the requisite nexus existed for the cable service provider was licensed and entitled to the payment of a lawful charge. A similar linkage existed in R. v. Miller el al (1984), 12 C.C.C. (3d) 466 and in R. v. Fulop (1988), 46 C.C.C. (3d) 427 where the accused was successfully prosecuted under s. 327. Here, as in Hollohan, the creator of the programming signal was not entitled to assess a lawful charge for what they may describe as an" illegal communication" to the public in Canada.

It does not say so but the Dorgan case went all the way to the Supreme Court and was REVERSED for exactly this reason, the need for a nexus. See it at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/rulings/RvFulop3.html

Fulop lost in the SCR because the nexus of a "LAWFUL DISTRIBUTOR' and Rogers cable DID exist and it implies (as do the first two rulings in lower courts) that the link or nexus was NOT made. But because a cable company uses a cable then they have to be a lawful distributor to operate in Canada. Thus the guy Fulop WAS GUILTY for this reason. Otherwise he was acquitted if not for the nexus or link.

So it's clearly NOT an offence under the CC 327 when its NOT a lawful Distributor. In my view this law also shows the INTENT of the RC Act since this has existed for many years when virtually the same words were added to the RC act in 1991 but the Supreme Court did not take that into consideration in April as it should be when there is confusion in the lawhttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</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!