I Settled! Here are the facts

[EXITNOW]

DELETED BY THE AUTHOR. GOT SCARED THAT I HAD GIVEN A LITTLE TOO MUCH INFO!

[gunsmoke2]

That was a very good settlement you got.



GS2

[Lager]

I doubt Dave would show up telling people 500 bones settled the matter. If Dave would take that from people they wouldn't get many people that wouldn't take it. Dave got greedy and that is all there is to it. Once you up the ante past the amount of money that the majority of people can put their hands onto with short notice you will find resistance. That is why this and other forums are so busy regarding this matter.

Lager

[Doc203]

Subsribed or not, $500 sounds way too cheap...

It really doesn't matter to dave of you have been a good customer, your still a theif to him.

Did he not ask for your all of your hacking equip also?

Sounds odd to me.

[thepoet]

So, what was the real point of your post? Just to rub it in to current "letter" recipients who can no longer (if they ever really could...) settle for $500?* Unless you have specific wording** in your agreement to the effect you're no longer liable for criminal prosecution, it's unlikely you're really out of the woods on this at all.

*It's incomprehensible to me why YOU would call DirecTV's contingency sharks on behalf of someone else who received "the letter"! What could YOU possibly achieve on his behalf? That act of bravado, if true, indicates you're either a lawyer, liar, or fool.

**Your case may be settled as far as DirecTV is concerned, but the federal government is a bit more hardnosed. For criminal prosecution exemption, your agreement would have to be signed off by a federal attorney since federal regulations (DMCA) are involved. Pray you NEVER come to the attention of the Feds for ANYTHING involving ANY federal agency in the future.

[jones07]

Do you guys take anything at face value ?

Do you believe anyone ?

Is everyone a lier in you eyes ?

Do someone need 3K+plus post to be believed ? :gg

[EXITNOW]

DELETED BY THE AUTHOR.

[REDx]

EXITNOW when these letters first started
i heard about settlements of 500.00
dollars. i never heard it from anyone
i know in the real world. how ever about
febuary thru june people i know personally
started getting letters those who got lawyers
were able to settle for 1,800 dollars.
some did some didnt. then enduser goup came
on to the sceen. those who hadnt settled were
told now it would be 3,500 no deals you pay
or they were to sue. i know of two people who
had lawyers and were in the process of fighting
dtv. they both had more to loose than money if
they agreed to settle. in one case dtv suddenly
drop the case without prejudice. the other is still
on going.
so i guess that the longer you wait to get a lawyer
and defend yourself the worst it gets.

[EXITNOW]

DELETED BY THE AUTHOR,

[Salty Jizm]

Exitnow,

Please be careful, and don't get baited into saying things you should not. You expressed a desire (in the first post) to stay anonymous. But between saying you got the $500 demand letter and you just recently settled combined with the fact you wanted California channels, I think it might be possible to pick you out of the crowd.

Please don't reveal any more information.... :)

[gunsmoke2]

DTV or DTV's lawyers have NOTHING to do with whether a case is prosecuted criminally.


DTV can sworn out a complaint with law enforcement as I did once. After not getting paid on a Civil Judgement awarded to me I then flew out to file a compaint with local authorities. The crook is now in jail.



GS2

[Randomluck]

DTV can sworn out a complaint with law enforcement as I did once

They sure can. I have a warrant right here that states "Affidavit(s) having been made before me by Special Agent (Daves Guy), who has reason to belive that"..... blah blah blah for 4 pages. All they have to do is get a bug up their A*ss along with a bit of mistaken info and they swear out a complaint and come a-knockin. When they come they ain't playing either. :eek:

[Sniperet]

Randomluck

So that's why I haven't seen you around. Make sure you keep Bubba off me when I get there LOL.

[Randomluck]

Hahahahaha OK deal! You watch my back & I'll watch yours.

So far no Bubba here, just an "informal talk" along with cleaning out the computers & equipment....I needed an excuse to upgrade computers anyways LOL

[jandreas]

If any lawyer working for DTV is threatening or even mentioning criminal prosecution in an attempt to get you to settle a civil matter then you need to contact the local BAR association in your state. As hard as it may seem to believe, lawyers have certain ethics rules they must follow. Chances are that lawyer will no longer be practicing when they are done with them. If the only evidence DTV has is a printout or screenshot of an invoice from an accounting program I can not for the life of me understand why you or anyone else is settling. The case would/will be dismissed long before you'd find yourself sitting in a deposition. Ignoring the fact they have no legal proof you actually have the device in your possession. They need to prove you actually used the device to steal an encrypted signal. How are they going to do this unless you admit it or they witness it? Someone please educate me? (if you have the time/chance)

[BrainDamage]

Originally posted by jandreas
If any lawyer working for DTV is threatening or even mentioning criminal prosecution in an attempt to get you to settle a civil matter then you need to contact the local BAR association in your state. As hard as it may seem to believe, lawyers have certain ethics rules they must follow. Chances are that lawyer will no longer be practicing when they are done with them. If the only evidence DTV has is a printout or screenshot of an invoice from an accounting program I can not for the life of me understand why you or anyone else is settling. The case would/will be dismissed long before you'd find yourself sitting in a deposition. Ignoring the fact they have no legal proof you actually have the device in your possession. They need to prove you actually used the device to steal an encrypted signal. How are they going to do this unless you admit it or they witness it? Someone please educate me? (if you have the time/chance)

It is also about $$, and Dave knows it. How many of us can afford $3,500? Most of us can in a pinch. But, start tossing in attorney's fees, filing fees, more attorney's fees, all of the lost wages going to court or mediation... the $$ gets really ugly. Dave set his number at a place that makes it difficult to resist.

I must hand it to Dave, he knows what he is doing, and most people are stepping into the trap and are not even trying to escape.

Good luck to us!

[vinapi]

this is what i don't get,if you have the $3,500 to settle(admit guilt)! you might as well give that $3,500 to a lawyer and fight for your innocence;) it cost dave $$ too to drag on a case, take him for the ride he'll eventually back off cause in the long run he will lose $$$ and lose in court! is it actually worth it for dave to spend $10,000+ for attorney and court fees to get back $3,500 from a defendant, i don't think so! not good business!

[REDx]

Originally posted by vinapi
this is what i don't get,if you have the $3,500 to settle(admit guilt)! you might as well give that $3,500 to a lawyer and fight for your innocence;) it cost dave $$ too to drag on a case, take him for the ride he'll eventually back off cause in the long run he will lose $$$ and lose in court! is it actually worth it for dave to spend $10,000+ for attorney and court fees to get back $3,500 from a defendant, i don't think so! not good business!
the problem is Dtv is useing contingence lawyers.
so it wont cost him anything to sue you.

[Doc203]

I would definately get an atty. Regardless of wht it is costing Dave etc, the only thing that matters is this:

Buying a loader isn't against the law. They would have to ahve more proof than I bought a loader to convict me of anything. Now a days most everyone has an atty, and if you take a letter such as this to hi he should write a letter back asking them who they think they are making accusations without any proof.

Unless they have witnesses that say you programmed cards for them, or some other form of solid proof they have nothing.

I would rather pay a lawyer $500.00 to get me out of this, than to pay DTV $500.00 to admit that I commited a crime that I could be prosecuted for criminally later.

[condmca]

Originally posted by REDx
the problem is Dtv is useing contingence lawyers.
so it wont cost him anything to sue you.

In theory you're correct...Dave outsources everything to his collection-agency level attorneys who get to then share the booty of these settlements. Any additional time these guys put in on a case above and beyond the "starters-fee" dave pays them is likely contingent ONLY on their legal judgement, not dave's, and is then based on the evidence you, the letter recipient, have provided them.


Remember that it is primarily these lawyers that will use their judgement on whom to sue based on the evidence collected, and apparently ALL evidence collected starts solely from seized purchase records only, which are already in question. Any additional evidence beyond these purchase records DOES NOT come from P.I.s or Privacy-protected credit card statements or ISP logs, it comes from the very people they're threatening to sue, YOU, the letter recipient.


The truth is that it would be very expensive for these collection agency-lawyers to start dragging people off to court via an actual summons because the onus would then be on them to actually win in court. Yes, losing is not an option here for them people, they will only sue if they honestly think they can win!
Moreover, many of us have found out that there is still ZERO precedent against any end-user committing actual "signal theft" against Dave. What does this mean? It means that any loss by dave's collection agencies in court based solely on signal theft would work as precedent against these agencies' sponser, DirecTV, making potential wins far too risky for dave to attempt.


Oh, and like Jandreas mentioned earlier in this post, contact the local BAR association if you feel an attorney is working in dave's best interest and not your own because lawyers make good money on both sides via extortion letters like these :mad: :mad:
...so take the fight right back to them in any way you can people!!

[REDx]

yes but those attorneys work with in
certain perameters. as they can only
settle for a specfied amount .
there are other factors used to determine
who they sue and who they dont. cost
of sueing isnt high on that list.
fear is at the very top.
as time goes on we see more and more of
what those factors are. bottom line they
want as many people as possible to know
they are serious. a add campaign against
unauthorized use of there signal would cost
millions.
why not use those millions to sue people
they suspect of not paying for there service.
the return is greater with the law suits.
a commercail saying its against the law to
watch and not pay would just get a laugh out
of those doing it. but most dont laugh at those
letters and they sure wont laugh at a law suit.

[JLA]

Originally posted by condmca
Oh, and like Jandreas mentioned earlier in this post, contact the local BAR association if you feel an attorney is working in dave's best interest and not your own because lawyers make good money on both sides via extortion letters like these :mad: :mad:


Not entirely what I meant but I do agree with you regarding the clearinghouse style settlement letters. What I meant was if Dave's lawyers happen to mention you will/could/might be charged criminally if you don't settle with them you should contact your local BAR association. A lawyer that uses the threat of a criminal prosecution to induce a civil settlement does not practice law for very long.

[condmca]

Originally posted by JLA
What I meant was if Dave's lawyers happen to mention you will/could/might be charged criminally if you don't settle with them you should contact your local BAR association. A lawyer that uses the threat of a criminal prosecution to induce a civil settlement does not practice law for very long.

You just said what I meant to say but didn't say as well as you just said ;)