How I am winning against DTV in SC

[dolphindave]

I have been through the whole process of the letters, etc. so I hired an attorney and paid a retainer fee. We are winning our case and it is almost over!

There are two causes of action against me -
1. Purchase and Possession of illegal equipment used to steal satellite signals. We have just gone before a Federal judge on this cause and to my delightment, the DTV attorneys stood up and requested that the charges be dropped for lack of evidence. We didn't even have to argue the case, but if we had, they would have had to provide proof that we bought and received the bootloader. Mind you, there were no depositions or anything because my attorney requested Proof of Discovery and they had none.

2. Theft of satellite signal. Under this cause, the DTV attorneys must prove that we stole the DTV signal. There is absolutely no way for them to prove this. Their only allegation is that our DTV PPV purchases went down after we purchased the illegal equipment. So what?? That proves nothing! And that's all they have! If this cause even makes it to a hearing, it will be thrown out as well.

My attorney is part of an email group of attorney across the US who are defending these cases. And after the dust clears, we will be filing a class action lawsuit against DTV for illegal prosection and harrassment. I will be glad to answer and questions you may have. Just email me at phurst6546@aol.com.

As a final word: To all of you who have received the letters from Dave.....DO NOT SETTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gunsmoke2]

I think that's great


We have just gone before a Federal judge on this cause and to my delightment, the DTV attorneys stood up and requested that the charges be dropped for lack of evidence. We didn't even have to argue the case, but if we had, they would have had to provide proof that we bought and received the bootloader. Mind you, there were no depositions or anything because my attorney requested Proof of Discovery and they had none.


However could you kindly share you case number or the doc that says the first charge was dropped. This could effect hundreds or thousands so if you can't supply the information or don't want to could you please have your lawyer contact Mr Zarcian ( spelled wrong ) in Florida.


Maybe another member could post the correct spelling with contact information. Between lawyers it remains confidential unless stated otherwize and then no names or case number or doc will be released just a confirmation from Zarcian.


Thanks


GS2



Hi GS2,

Here is the correct contact information for Mr. Zakarian.

CONTACT: Albert Zakarian, Esq.
Anthony G. Woodward, P.A.
2024 West Cleveland Street
Tampa, Florida 33606
Telephone: (813) 251-2200
fax (813) 251-2445
zakarian@tampabay.rr.com

It can be found along with many other contacts and information on lawyers at

http://www.Legal-rights.org/uslawyer.html

Mr. Zakarian has also been making settlements or people all across the U.S.A. but he cannot go into court to represent you in other jurisdictions.

There are actually 2 class action suits filed so far and if you are in a different state a new one can be filed again. The more there are the more it will be paid attention to. The second class action filing can be seen here:

http://www.legal-rights.org/DTV/2ndclassaction.html

Regards

To The REAL king!!

[gunsmoke2]

My attorney is part of an email group of attorney across the US who are defending these cases. And after the dust clears, we will be filing a class action lawsuit against DTV for illegal prosection and harrassment. I will be glad to answer and questions you may have. Just email me at phurst6546@aol.com.


Do you have the name of the email group ? or could you post a few of the attorneys so other members may contact one of them.


There is already a class action suit filled


Tia!


GS2

[Endeavor]

Cut and Paste from WWW.Legal-Rights.org (http://www.legal-rights.org)

CONTACT: Albert Zakarian, Esquire
Anthony G. Woodward, P.A.
2024 West Cleveland Street
Tampa, Florida 33606
Telephone: (813) 251-2200
fax (813) 251-2445
E-mail zakarian@tampabay.rr.com

Contact: Mr. Albert Zakarian, Esq.

I urge all parties that have received letters and signed agreements with DTV and those that have received letters and not signed any agreement to contact this firm. It is our only hope of defeating our GOLIATH in this matter...

Support our legal rights!!!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif (http://www.legal-rights.org/DTV/classaction.html)

Support The Canadian Charter Challenge By donating to legal-rights.org!!!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)

Directions for adding your own Class Action tagline graphic are here... (http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=141208)

[ALittleBirdie]

1. Purchase and Possession of illegal equipment used to steal satellite signals. We have just gone before a Federal judge on this cause and to my delightment, the DTV attorneys stood up and requested that the charges be dropped for lack of evidence. We didn't even have to argue the case, but if we had, they would have had to provide proof that we bought and received the bootloader. Mind you, there were no depositions or anything because my attorney requested Proof of Discovery and they had none.

Hmmm...I wonder if that could be because DirecTv is trying to avoid setting precedent regarding their interpretation of the DMCA (last time I checked PPV purchases weren't covered under the DMCA). Taking you to court without evidence (other than decline than in PPV...haha)...well I know malicious prosecution is hard to get, but that sure looks like a winner.

It's going to be great day when their extortion campaign blows up in their face. :cool:

[huseless]

Since DTV is opening its books to possible buyers, I wonder what they are saying about the various lawsuits. They are required to disclose any lawsuits against them that may result in costs, and I beleive they are also required to list lawsuits they have against others since that also implies liability. Their own documentation can easily show they are engaging in malicious prosecution if they dont show an expectation of positive cash flow from their extortion.

[condmca]

Originally posted by ALittleBirdie
Hmmm...I wonder if that could be because DirecTv is trying to avoid setting precedent regarding their interpretation of the DMCA ... :cool:

EXAAAACTLY!
DTV won't allow any end-user case to proceed because of the reason you gave. What are people really risking if they choose not to settle anyway?---A showdown with lawyers who'll back-off the minute you call their bluff, that's what!

This DMCA is just the ultimate tool to be used to scare people. After all, people fear what they don't understand, and how many people really understand the DMCA? ;)
The DMCA, BTW, was nothing more than the Democrat's gift to hollywood. :mad: ...and who really wants to support these ungrateful, whiny and unpatriotic people anyway??? but i digress :o

Peace!

[Slam_mm]

The DMCA, BTW, was nothing more than the Democrat's gift to hollywood.

I know it's off topic but I often wondered why the Clinton Administration allowed such a pro-business / anti little guy piece of s**t to be created. I think you summed it up nicely.

[REDx]

Originally posted by gunsmoke2
I think that's great
However could you kindly share you case number or the doc that says the first charge was dropped. This could effect hundreds or thousands so if you can't supply the information or don't want to could you please have your lawyer contact Mr Zarcian ( spelled wrong ) in Florida.
Maybe another member could post the correct spelling with contact information. Between lawyers it remains confidential unless stated otherwize and then no names or case number or doc will be released just a confirmation from Zarcian.


Thanks


GS2
great response as usual GS2
wanna bet there aint one.

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by REDx
great response as usual GS2
wanna bet there aint one.

As much as I want to be wrong... I bet we don't get a case number that verifies the claims. I'll be the first to say "I was wrong..." and I really hope I am wrong. But...

[Slam_mm]

I PMed him and he sent me a case number. I don't have pacer (yet) so I can't verify.

[REDx]

Originally posted by Salty Jizm
As much as I want to be wrong... I bet we don't get a case number that verifies the claims. I'll be the first to say "I was wrong..." and I really hope I am wrong. But...

you took the words right out of
my mouth:(

[Slam_mm]

REDx, Salty, GS2, do you have pacer?

[trapstir]

It was part of the Nichols case, where she got 2512 dismissed.

[jwjon1]

What do you mean about the Nichols case, trapstir?

I hope I'm wrong, too, but until I see the specifics, I'll remain a skeptic--particularly because of the obvious flaw that if the first cause of action (1. Purchase and Possession of illegal equipment used to steal satellite signals) is dropped for lack of evidence, then the second cause of action (2. Theft of satellite signal) would necessarily fall by the wayside as well. Curiously, this does not appear to be the case.?.?

Like everyone else, I hope my skepticism is unfounded. More specifics would be very beneficial to a number of readers, if anyone has any, particularly on whatever the case number search turns up.

[nctmo]

Dolphindave,
?
If what you say is true, then why did you and your lawyer document an offer to settle for $2000.00 in your case?

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by Slam_mm
REDx, Salty, GS2, do you have pacer?

No, but our mods have access to it. The information is public record. Revealing the case number is not a big deal other than it gives a clue where to look.

Please post the case number.

[Slam_mm]

I wouldn't normally do this and mods please delete if inappropriate, but all the docket info is posted on another site including this case number: 2 02 3041 18

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by Slam_mm
I wouldn't normally do this and mods please delete if inappropriate, but all the docket info is posted on another site including this case number: 2 02 3041 18

Slam_mm, This -IS- something you should normally do. This is the Political and Legal Rights forum. This information is public. And it helps us get to the bottom of alergations and claims quickly and easily.

Thanks for the info!

[gunsmoke2]

I couldn't find anything with that case number which seems too long so I dropped of the last two digits.



US District Court for the District of South Carolina

(Charleston)

2:02cv3041

Directv Inc v. Collins, et al

This docket was retrieved from the court on Wednesday, September 18, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date Filed: 9/16/2002 Class Code: JURY

Assigned to: Judge David C Norton Closed?: No
Referred to:

Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions (890) Statute: 17:101
Cause: Copyright Infringement

Lead Docket: None
Other Docket: None Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Jurisdiction: Federal Question Demand Amount: $0


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Litigants Attorneys

Directv Inc, A California Corporation
PLAINTIFF
Donald B Clark
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
803-577-6726 803-724-8036

Janet L Paduhovich
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
803-577-6726 843-724-8036

Kevin Eberle
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
803-577-6726 843-724-8036


v.


Bill Collins
DEFENDANT

Robbie Free
DEFENDANT

David Hurst
DEFENDANT

Derrick Hodge
DEFENDANT

Elijah Cromedy
DEFENDANT

Gail Ferguson
DEFENDANT

Steve Franks
DEFENDANT

Shirley W Nichols
DEFENDANT

Richard Cromedy
DEFENDANT

Jack Goynes
DEFENDANT

Date # Proceeding Text
9/16/2002 1 COMPLAINT; FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 200-15240 Service due by 1/14/03 for Jack Goynes, for Richard Cromedy, for Shirley W Nichols, for Steve Franks, for Gail Ferguson, for Elijah Cromedy, for Derrick Hodge, for David Hurst, for Robbie Free, for Bill Collins (eric) [Entry date 09/17/02]

9/16/2002 2 SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant Bill Collins, defendant Robbie Free, defendant David Hurst, defendant Derrick Hodge, defendant Elijah Cromedy, defendant Gail Ferguson, defendant Steve Franks, defendant Shirley W Nichols, defendant Richard Cromedy, defendant Jack Goynes (eric) [Entry date 09/17/02]

9/16/2002 3 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by plaintiff Directv Inc; jury demand (eric) [Entry date 09/17/02]


Its unlikely there is another case in SC with 2:02cv304118. If any one else finds let us know.


No further update from 09/17/02. This is from courlink which is very accuate like Pacer. Will try that also but doubt there will be anything else.


So my preliminary thought based on the above is KAKA about DTV dismissing. Not even an end user lawsuit.


GS2

[gunsmoke2]

Updated


US District Court Civil Docket

US District Court for the District of South Carolina

(Charleston)

2:02cv3041

Directv Inc v. Collins, et al

This docket was retrieved from the court on Thursday, February 13, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date Filed: 9/16/2002 Class Code: JURY

Assigned to: Judge David C Norton Closed?: No
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robert S Carr

Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions (890) Statute: 47:0151
Cause: Communications Act

Lead Docket: None
Other Docket: None Jury Demand: Both

Jurisdiction: Federal Question Demand Amount: $0


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Litigants Attorneys

Directv Inc, A California Corporation
PLAINTIFF
Donald B Clark
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-577-6726 843-724-8036

Janet L Paduhovich
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-577-6726 843-724-8036

Kevin Eberle
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-577-6726 843-724-8036


v.


Bill Collins
DEFENDANT
Troy Guerard Knight
[COR LD NTC]
Lanier and Knight
PO Box 280
Summerville SC, 29484
USA
843-821-9700 843-821-0031

Jennifer Lynn Queen
[COR LD NTC]
Lanier and Knight
PO Box 280
Summerville SC, 29484
USA
843-821-9700 843-821-0031


Robbie Free
DEFENDANT
Christopher L Murphy
[COR LD NTC]
Stuckey Law Offices LLC
PO Box 1755
Charleston SC, 29402-1755
USA
843-577-9323 843-577-3635


David Hurst
DEFENDANT
Christopher L Murphy
[COR LD NTC]
Stuckey Law Offices LLC
PO Box 1755
Charleston SC, 29402-1755
USA
843-577-9323 843-577-3635


Derrick Hodge
DEFENDANT
Christopher L Murphy
[COR LD NTC]
Stuckey Law Offices LLC
PO Box 1755
Charleston SC, 29402-1755
USA
843-577-9323 843-577-3635


Elijah Cromedy
DEFENDANT

Gail Ferguson
[Term: 11/20/2002 ]
DEFENDANT
Kenneth C Krawcheck
[Term: 11/20/2002 ]
[COR LD NTC]
Krawcheck and Davidson
PO Box 1018
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
803-577-2577 843-723-9951


Steve Franks
DEFENDANT
Elbert O Duffie, III
[COR LD NTC]
Bogoslow Jones Stephens and Duffie
PO Box 1515
Walterboro SC, 29488
USA
843-538-1050 843-538-1060

Melvin Wayne Cockrell, III
[COR LD NTC]
Bogoslow Jones Stephens and Duffie
PO Box 1515
Walterboro SC, 29488
USA
843-538-1050


Shirley W Nichols
DEFENDANT
M Richardson Hyman, Jr
[COR LD NTC]
Bennett Pinckney and Hyman
PO Box 127
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-529-0899


Richard Cromedy
DEFENDANT

Jack Goynes
DEFENDANT
Christopher L Murphy
[COR LD NTC]
Stuckey Law Offices LLC
PO Box 1755
Charleston SC, 29402-1755
USA
843-577-9323 843-577-3635


-------------------------------------------------


Bill Collins
COUNTER-CLAIMANT
Troy Guerard Knight
[COR LD NTC]
Lanier and Knight
PO Box 280
Summerville SC, 29484
USA
843-821-9700 843-821-0031

Jennifer Lynn Queen
[COR LD NTC]
Lanier and Knight
PO Box 280
Summerville SC, 29484
USA
843-821-9700 843-821-0031


v.


Directv Inc
COUNTER-DEFENDANT
Donald B Clark
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-577-6726 843-724-8036

Janet L Paduhovich
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-577-6726 843-724-8036

Kevin Eberle
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-577-6726 843-724-8036


-------------------------------------------------


Bill Collins
COUNTER-CLAIMANT
Troy Guerard Knight
[COR LD NTC]
Lanier and Knight
PO Box 280
Summerville SC, 29484
USA
843-821-9700 843-821-0031

Jennifer Lynn Queen
[COR LD NTC]
Lanier and Knight
PO Box 280
Summerville SC, 29484
USA
843-821-9700 843-821-0031


v.


Directv Inc
COUNTER-DEFENDANT
Donald B Clark
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-577-6726 843-724-8036

Janet L Paduhovich
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-577-6726 843-724-8036

Kevin Eberle
[COR LD NTC]
Rosen Rosen and Hagood
PO Box 893
Charleston SC, 29402
USA
843-577-6726 843-724-8036


Date # Proceeding Text
9/16/2002 1 COMPLAINT; FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 200-15240 Service due by 1/14/03 for Jack Goynes, for Richard Cromedy, for Shirley W Nichols, for Steve Franks, for Gail Ferguson, for Elijah Cromedy, for Derrick Hodge, for David Hurst, for Robbie Free, for Bill Collins (eric) [Entry date 09/17/02]

9/16/2002 2 SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant Bill Collins, defendant Robbie Free, defendant David Hurst, defendant Derrick Hodge, defendant Elijah Cromedy, defendant Gail Ferguson, defendant Steve Franks, defendant Shirley W Nichols, defendant Richard Cromedy, defendant Jack Goynes (eric) [Entry date 09/17/02]

9/16/2002 3 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by plaintiff Directv Inc; jury demand (eric) [Entry date 09/17/02]

9/20/2002 4 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant Robbie Free 9/18/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/18/02 for Robbie Free ; Answer due on 10/8/02 for Robbie Free executed by legal couriers agency (mpas)

9/20/2002 5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant Richard Cromedy 9/17/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/17/02 for Richard Cromedy ; Answer due on 10/7/02 for Richard Cromedy executed by legal couriers agency (mpas)

9/20/2002 6 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant Steve Franks 9/17/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/17/02 for Steve Franks ; Answer due on 10/7/02 for Steve Franks executed by legal courier agency (mpas)

9/20/2002 7 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant Shirley W Nichols 9/16/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/16/02 for Shirley W Nichols ; Answer due on 10/7/02 for Shirley W Nichols executed by legal couriers agency (mpas)

9/20/2002 8 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant Bill Collins 9/16/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/16/02 for Bill Collins ; Answer due on 10/7/02 for Bill Collins executed by legal couriers agency (mpas)

9/20/2002 9 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant Jack Goynes 9/16/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/16/02 for Jack Goynes ; Answer due on 10/7/02 for Jack Goynes executed by legal couriers agency (mpas)

9/20/2002 10 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant David Hurst 9/16/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/16/02 for David Hurst ; Answer due on 10/7/02 for David Hurst executed by legal couriers agency (mpas)

9/24/2002 11 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant Derrick Hodge 9/22/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/22/02 for Derrick Hodge ; Answer due on 10/15/02 for Derrick Hodge executed by legal couriers (mpas)

9/24/2002 12 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant Elijah Cromedy 9/19/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/21/02 for Elijah Cromedy ; Answer due on 10/9/02 for Elijah Cromedy executed by legal couriers (mpas)

9/26/2002 13 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed as to defendant Gail Ferguson 9/24/02 Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/24/02 for Gail Ferguson ; Answer due on 10/15/02 for Gail Ferguson executed by legal courier (mpas)

10/2/2002 14 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by defendant Shirley W Nichols; jury demand (mpas)

10/2/2002 15 NOTICE of appearance by M Richardson Hyman, Jr, Esq (mpas)

10/2/2002 16 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Shirley W Nichols (mpas)

10/2/2002 17 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by defendant Derrick Hodge; jury demand (mpas)

10/2/2002 18 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Derrick Hodge , (mpas)

10/2/2002 19 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Robbie Free (mpas)

10/2/2002 20 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by defendant Robbie Free; jury demand (mpas)

10/2/2002 21 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant David Hurst (Attorney Christopher L Murphy), (mpas)

10/2/2002 22 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by defendant David Hurst; jury demand (mpas)

10/3/2002 23 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by defendant Jack Goynes; jury demand (mpas) [Entry date 10/04/02]

10/3/2002 24 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Jack Goynes (Attorney Christopher L Murphy), (mpas) [Entry date 10/04/02]

10/4/2002 25 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Bill Collins (Attorney Troy Guerard Knight, Jennifer Lynn Queen), (mpas)

10/4/2002 26 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by defendant Bill Collins; jury demand (mpas)

10/4/2002 25 COUNTERCLAIM by defendant Bill Collins against plaintiff Directv Inc (mpas)

10/15/2002 27 REPLY by plaintiff Directv Inc to [25-1] amended counter claim (mpas) [Edit date 10/16/02]

10/15/2002 28 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Bill Collins : amends [25-1] answer (mpas) [Edit date 10/16/02]

10/15/2002 28 COUNTERCLAIM by defendant Bill Collins against plaintiff Directv Inc (mpas) [Edit date 10/16/02]

10/17/2002 29 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Gail Ferguson (Attorney Kenneth C Krawcheck), Assignment Interrogatories due on 10/28/02 for Gail Ferguson ; (mpas)

10/17/2002 30 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by defendant Gail Ferguson; jury demand (mpas)

10/29/2002 31 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Steve Franks (Attorney Melvin Wayne Cockrell III, Elbert O Duffie III),; jury demand (mpas)

11/1/2002 32 Offer of judgment by defendant Jack Goynes (eric)

11/1/2002 33 Offer of judgment by defendant David Hurst (eric)

11/1/2002 34 Offer of judgment by defendant Derrick Hodge (eric)

11/13/2002 35 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Steve Franks : amends [31-1] answer; jury demand (mpas)

11/20/2002 36 STIPULATION of dismissal 41 (a)(1) against Gail Ferguson (mpas) [Entry date 11/21/02]

12/2/2002 40 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Jury Selection deadline set for 8/1/03 ; Mediation deadline for 7/9/03 eod 12/3/02 ( signed by Judge David C. Norton ) (gjoh) [Entry date 12/03/02]

12/3/2002 37 Request for Default by Directv Inc as to Richard Cromedy (ssan)

12/3/2002 38 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT by plaintiff Directv Inc as to defendant Richard Cromedy . Party not an infant, not incompetent, nor in the military, has been served on 09/17/02. (ssan)

12/3/2002 39 CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to defendant Richard Cromedy (ssan)

12/23/2002 41 MOTION by defendant Shirley W Nichols for partial summary judgment (mpas)

12/23/2002 42 MEMORANDUM by defendant Shirley W Nichols in support of [41-1] motion for partial summary judgment (mpas)

1/10/2003 43 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Directv Inc in opposition to [41-1] motion for partial summary judgment (mpas) [Entry date 01/13/03]

1/14/2003 45 ORDER referring case for discovery matters to Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr (signed by Judge David C. Norton) eod 1/15/03 (eric) [Entry date 01/15/03]

1/15/2003 44 NOTICE of Hearing before Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr set Motion Hearing to 9:00 2/5/03 for [41-1] motion for partial summary judgment, set status conference for 9:00 2/5/03 before Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr (mnew)

1/17/2003 46 REPLY by defendant Shirley W Nichols to [43-1] opposition memorandum (mnew) [Entry date 01/21/03]

2/5/2003 47 STIPULATION of dismissal by and between the parties that the Thrid Cause of Action as to Defendant Shirley W. Nichols, is dismissed, with prejudice (mnew)

2/5/2003 48 STATUS CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr ORAL ORDER mooting [41-1] motion for partial summary judgment Court Reporter: Gilbert O'Brien, esr. (dpat) [Entry date 02/06/03]



GS2

[gunsmoke2]

MORE UPDATE


2/12/03 49 MOTION by defendant Bill Collins for summary judgment (mnew)

2/12/03 50 MEMORANDUM by defendant Bill Collins in support of [49-1]
motion for summary judgment (mnew)

2/12/03 51 26(f) Report by David Hurst with attached 26.03
interrogatories. Plaintiff agrees to Conference and
Scheduling Order. (mnew)

2/12/03 52 MOTION by defendant David Hurst for partial summary
judgment (mnew)

2/12/03 53 MEMORANDUM by defendant David Hurst in support of [52-1]
motion for partial summary judgment (mnew)

2/12/03 54 26(f) Report by Robbie Free . Defendant agrees to
Conference and Scheduling Order. (mnew)



GS2

[ALittleBirdie]

After a bit of research I've come to a conclusion...

We need to be sending "Thank You" cards to Ms. Nichols' lawyer(s)
:D .

The other nine defendents are likely going to pursue the same action (which they can't..it's too late)...if the case continues Judge (actually Magistrate) Carr must decide the validity of DirecTv's claims under 2512 and it don't look good for DirecTv.

Worst case scanario: DirecTv drops the entire SC case to avoid setting such precedent...and everyone knows how to call DirecTv's bluff.

For those wondering that leaves 2511, which carries a maximum fine of $500.

This is by no means the end of DirecTv's extortion campaign, but if it becomes clear DirecTv cannot sue under 2512 (which, all though it may be a way off, it seems to be the way things are heading) the lawyers willing to take this on a contingency basis are going to dry up (I'd be willing bet DirecTv ain't even gonna bother sending the dogs after you for $500).

The beginning of the end?

[Salty Jizm]

For starters: *** I WAS WRONG!!! ***

Ok, now that is out of the way. :)

I'm confused. The Motion for Summary Judgment looks like it was granted. But it hasn't actually happened yet???

I think the acceptance for 'Partial' summary judgement means DTV was hoping the judgment would only apply to this one person?

GS2, can you walk us through this??? (Please!!!)

[REDx]

at a glance this is looking like the real
thing. i hope it is.

[ALittleBirdie]

This is my understanding of it...
Magistrate Carr "dismissed" the motion for summary judgement (The motion itself was more than likely a "hail mary" attempt at setting some precedent). Carr ruled as he did as DirecTv had agreed to drop the charges under 2512 before he issued a ruling on the motion, thereby making the motion a moot point.

I believe it is beyond the point for the other defendents to file a similar motion. This would mean (if accurate) that Magistrate Carr must decide the validity of 2512 in DirecTv allegations (which DirecTv is obviously terrified of) or DirecTv must request the charges under 2512 be dropped.

If you're curious the with "prejudice" means DirecTv cannot again bring up charges against Ms. Nichols under 2512 in the case.

[dolphindave]

My case # in SC is 2 02 3041 18 and was filed in the Charleston Division of the U.S. District Courts. If you would like to email my attorney for validation, his email is clmurphy@stuckeylaw.com or I will be glad to fax copies of the documents to all you Doubting Susans. My email address is phurst6546@aol.com. Why would I make up such a thing????? The first cause of action was dismissed for lack of evidence on Dave's part - my attorney said he was SO ready to argue this clause, but Dave's attorneys motioned for the charge to be dismissed. The second charge is pie; how can Dave possible prove that I stole his signal without my admission of guilt?? My attorney's expected response from Dave is to show that my subscriptions dropped off significantly after the alleged purchase of illegal equipment. I am happy to help you out, and in fact, posted answers to questions and my attorney's contact info on another thread. Trust me, there is hope!

[dolphindave]

To add further to my last rant....yes you do owe Ms. Nichol's (who is also my)attorney a thank you card and you can send it to him at clmurphy@stuckeylaw.com. He welcomes your calls and emails.

[dolphindave]

No KAKA about it. This is my case number 2 02 3041 18 filed in the Charleston division of the US District Court and Ms. Nichols is one of my co-defendants. If you want more info, email me at phurst6546@aol.com. I am glad to share in my victory-to-be!! Or better yet, email my attorney at clmurphy@stuckeylaw.com

[dolphindave]

That was a little trick my attorney pulled by offering $2000, which we knew they would refuse so that in case we DID lose and Dave asked for $10,000 or whatever, we have documented that we tried to offer them $2000 to start with. I would rather pay $2000 than $10,000. Pretty smart trick, huh????

[ALittleBirdie]

It seems David may have found Goliath's "achilles heel" in the Nichols' case...again congratulations to Mr. Murphy. If DirecTv is going to run away like little girl when someone pushes them on 2512, it just became a whole lot cheaper to fight DTV.

The next step is to get some precedent regarding 2512...then if the letters and lawsuits (with respect to 2512) continue (especially in that district) an extortion suit gets some real teeth.

If DTV keeps on backing off on 2512, word spreads, they're only left with two recourses...

1.)Quit the extortion campaign and pound their chest to anyone that will listen they've "taken a bite out of signal theft".

2.)Risk letting it go before a judge, with hopes of continuing the extortion campaign, but with the possibility of giving some countersuits some teeth.

If DTV pushes even one of the nine defendents left in South Carolina on 2512, everything becomes much, much clearer.

Unfortunately I smell some delays coming in South Carolina...don't won't to scare off any potential GMH buyers do we?

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by dolphindave
No KAKA about it. This is my case number 2 02 3041 18 filed in the Charleston division of the US District Court and Ms. Nichols is one of my co-defendants.

Whoa!!! So Ms. Nichols (an attorney) ended up being sued by DTV? If so, they were obviously going to have a tiger by the tail.

[Dean_M_Love]

Originally posted by dolphindave
That was a little trick my attorney pulled by offering $2000, which we knew they would refuse so that in case we DID lose and Dave asked for $10,000 or whatever, we have documented that we tried to offer them $2000 to start with. I would rather pay $2000 than $10,000. Pretty smart trick, huh????

yeah that is a great trick, because if they don't accept it and they cannot even get a judgement for that amount at trial, they have to pay all your attorneys fees!

[gunsmoke2]

I based my KAKA comment after the first post of docket entries that went only to Sept, 2002. I was wrong at that however I am not prepaired to comment further until I study the case in more depth.


GS2

[BubbaHill]

Dated 02/05/2003
Case # 2:2002CV03041 South Carolina

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) it is
hereby stipulated by and between the parties that the
Third Cause of Action as to Defendant Shirley W. Nichols,
is hereby dismissed, with prejudice.

[gunsmoke2]

Ya I have that as I printed it out.


GS2

[BuzzSawOne]

I know it's off topic but I often wondered why the Clinton Administration allowed such a pro-business / anti little guy piece of s**t to be created.

What? Slam mm you have got to be kidding???!!

The Clintons were the extreme pro-hollywood political couple of all time. Since when did they really care about the "little guy"? If you could not provide them with anything they would do nothing for you.The Marc/Denise Rich, Rabbi vote scandal should have proved that to even the staunchest Clinton supporter....... They pushed that law through FOR THEIR HOLLYWOOD BUDDIES! DUH!!!


Buzz :Z

[BuzzSawOne]

Ok, here I go again.... This is GREAT news about fixing DTV's wagon when it comes to this case..... BUT....
Could this be why the FBI is now stepping up their cases and blanket busting?? If DTV has now figured out that the letter scam/lawsuits are not going to go their way, then what makes better sense than to use the DCMA law and the paid off federales to bust these people....
Saves DTV a lot of legal money and also embarrassment... Hmmmm,
I am going to be really watching for more blanket busts now to see if my theory is right. If so, then they will quietly stop the letter/suit campaign and the FBI will become a mcuh more prominent figure in all of this than previously..
Thoughts?

Buzz:K

[ALittleBirdie]

Originally posted by BuzzSawOne
Ok, here I go again.... This is GREAT news about fixing DTV's wagon when it comes to this case..... BUT....
Could this be why the FBI is now stepping up their cases and blanket busting?? If DTV has now figured out that the letter scam/lawsuits are not going to go their way, then what makes better sense than to use the DCMA law and the paid off federales to bust these people....
Saves DTV a lot of legal money and also embarrassment... Hmmmm,
I am going to be really watching for more blanket busts now to see if my theory is right. If so, then they will quietly stop the letter/suit campaign and the FBI will become a mcuh more prominent figure in all of this than previously..
Thoughts?

Buzz:K
If DTV wanted to fight piracy (not just make the bottom line look pretty, like their extortion scheme is doing) this was the way to go about it all along. Without new "software" coming out, the number of signal pirates and in turn hardware suppliers would be next to nothing.

That being said don't expect the extortion campaign to stop until the wheels fall of the gravy train. The big boys at GMH would never see the results of successful counter suit (as GMH will have been sold long before anyone knows the results of the pending counter suits) and no sane DA would dare go after them under criminal extortion provisions. The boys calling the shots (DTV's lawyers and the GMH big boys) have nothing to lose and a whole lot to gain. Someone may pay for this someday, but it's not going to be the people responsible.

[godzla]

A few questions if I may.

When did you receive your letters?

Did you or your attorney respond to them, and if so, what was DTVs response (prior to the suit)?

How long did it take DTV to file suit from either the letters or their last contact with you?

I'm a recipient of the letters and just want to know where I'm standing timing wise from being sued.

Thanks in advance.

[megados]

Originally posted by ALittleBirdie
Someone may pay for this someday, but it's not going to be the people responsible.

Now that has a familiar ring to it. :gg

[Zakarian]

There seems to be some confusion as to what the dismissal means in South Carolina concerning the 18 USC 2512 cause of action for "mere possession" of a device.

First, as stated above, the cause of action was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties. There was no court decision.

There is no reason in the docket why DirecTV stipulated to this. It may be that DirecTV agreed that pleading a separate 18 USC 2512 claim for mere possession would not survive because 18 USC 2520, the civil action authority under these statutes, requires them to prove illegal interception anyway. We are not told.

I have a similar result in Florida although in that case the Court did issue an Order denying my Motion to Dismiss but writing an opinion that said that it agreed that there is only a cause of action under 18 USC 2520 which requires signal interception and no separate 2512 claim. Essentially the same result.

Does this have a huge effect on any End User case?

Most likely not.

DirecTV has its own reasons for pleading like it does in the complaints. When enough courts kick this 2512 claim out, or, like it did in one of my cases, combine in it with 2520 (requiring signal interception) we will be left with the following:

47 USC 605(a) for illegal interception and
18 USC 2520 (via 2511) for illegal interception

(and some state claims depending on where you live)

IN a nutshell, the claim will be illegal interception.

Unless you give testimony under oath that helps DirecTV establish another claim, these cases are solely about interception. The devices are just a piece of evidence used to prove illegal interception.

Please remember that progress is slow but steady in litigation. As results come you will be informed by any number of sources. Meanwhile, the fight goes on.

[BuzzSawOne]

Ok, but HOW do they PROVE illegal interception.... If they do not have video or eyewitness testimony that you actually intercepted and used their signal, how can they prove their case? Circumstantial evidence only?

Buzz

[condmca]

Originally posted by Zakarian
IN a nutshell, the claim will be illegal interception.


...And a judge will dismiss the charges because purchasing unloopers or other computer peripherals does absolutely nothing to substantiate these allegations!

[Zakarian]

So far, the opposite has been true. The Courts have not been dismissing the causes of action because in a civil case a piece of evidence, no matter how weak, may give rise to liability if the jury decides it is enough to infer illegal interception.

Will some courts eventually dismiss these cases? Probably.

But, so far, your statement has not been bourne out by the actual court decisions.

[condmca]

Originally posted by Zakarian
So far, the opposite has been true. The Courts have not been dismissing the causes of action because in a civil case a piece of evidence, no matter how weak, may give rise to liability if the jury decides it is enough to infer illegal interception.

Will some courts eventually dismiss these cases? Probably.

But, so far, your statement has not been bourne out by the actual court decisions.

I just realized that this response really deserves a response.

Please provide one court decision against any individual guilty of ONLY "illegal interception."
Quote:"Will some courts eventually dismiss these cases? Probably"
--No, absolutely. As I said in my earlier response:
"a judge will dismiss the charges because purchasing unloopers or other computer peripherals does absolutely nothing to substantiate these allegations [of illegal interception].

[rommel92]

Conndmca, I do not think you know who you are speaking with. Zakarian is probably the MOST experienced LAWYER regarding DTV letters and lawsuits in this country. If he is telling you what the courts have been saying, it is because that is what he has experienced personnally. He has no reason to lie or mislead anyone. I do not know what more you could possibly want. You have a lawyer who is very experienced in this area telling you what the courts are actually doing about these cases. Cases that he has witnessed and argued. You can not get better facts than that.
Are you trying to debate his knowledge of the law with your opinion of what you think should happen?

[m_jonis]

While I do not have all the PACER records, etc. I'm not aware of any cases that has gone "all the way" to court on this matter. Either DTV has been dismissing the case before any ruling is made or the people settle.

Could you provide some of the actual court decisions that have been rendered? (ie, docket numbers and such?)

I'm also not aware of any cases that have even gotten to the point where the defendant has motioned for dismissal due to lack of evidence.

Note that I'm NOT saying any of what you say isn't true, but I've not seen anything yet (court decisions/cases).

Originally posted by Zakarian
So far, the opposite has been true. The Courts have not been dismissing the causes of action because in a civil case a piece of evidence, no matter how weak, may give rise to liability if the jury decides it is enough to infer illegal interception.

Will some courts eventually dismiss these cases? Probably.

But, so far, your statement has not been bourne out by the actual court decisions.

[REDx]

Originally posted by m_jonis


I'm also not aware of any cases that have even gotten to the point where the defendant has motioned for dismissal due to lack of evidence.

Note that I'm NOT saying any of what you say isn't true, but I've not seen anything yet (court decisions/cases).

ahhh did you read the whole thread. maybe i dont understand
your point. i have had a few longisland ice teas. do you mean
the whole case or just a peice of it. i thought that was what
this thread is all about. im not trying to be a smart ass or
anything
:o

[condmca]

Originally posted by rommel92
Conndmca, I do not think you know who you are speaking with.
Zakarian is probably the MOST experienced LAWYER regarding DTV letters and lawsuits in this country. If he is telling you what the courts have been saying, it is because that is what he has experienced personnally.


I don't really know who Zakarian is but I do believe he works in Florida and does get referrals from here. ;)

I'm simply saying that to claim that illegal interception can stand on it's own, separate from other charges, is complete caca! Dealers may lose, but hobbyists are impune, so the logical conclusion is to call dave's bluff and not settle.


Originally posted by rommel92

He has no reason to lie or mislead anyone. I do not know what more you could possibly want. You have a lawyer who is very experienced in this area telling you what the courts are actually doing about these cases. Cases that he has witnessed and argued. You can not get better facts than that.

I'm still waiting for that one court decision against some individual guilty of only illegal interception.


Originally posted by rommel92
Are you trying to debate his knowledge of the law with your opinion of what you think should happen?

I simply questioned the validity of something that was presented as a foregone conclusion.
As for my opinion of what I think should happen...
I'm just a sceptic who sees this whole thing as one ultra-successful scare campaign. I'm obviously not paid to be here so my views are, of course, in the minority :gg




Hi condmca,

This is a diferent case where Mr. Zakarian is NOT giving an opinion, he is telling us a FACT. So I do not think its beneficial for you to give a different opinion when we have the BENEFIT of knowing what the courts are actually doing which is contrary to your opinion.

You may well be right in the long run but right now and so far the courts see it differently. I think we all appreciate Mr. Zakarian coming on with the facts because FACTS are most important top most defendants.

We all have opinions and while its nice to have one it is far more important to KNOW what the courts are currently doing.

Many thanks Mr. Zakarian for being willing to take your valuable time and give us these facts. We all appreciate knowing what is actually happening in the court system. So lets take it easy with contrarian views lest Mr. Zakarian feel its not a valid use of his time to tell us what is happening. Go Easy please so that we do not lose this valuable resource.

Regards

To The Real King!!

[newideas]

This is is great but the Clinton-bashing is annoying.
How long has he been gone? When did all this stuff
begin? Does this add
up to anybody? Who would be more symathetic to you,
Arlin Spector or Ted Kennedy? Did you notice
the Government just took over a major website devoted
to Playstation hacking?

[tcan]

I'm just a sceptic who sees this whole thing as one ultra-successful scare campaign.

I just committed 15K to fight this Scare Campaign... Silly you say!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[ALittleBirdie]

Who would be more symathetic to you,
Arlin Spector or Ted Kennedy?

It depends how drunk Teddy is when you talk to him.


Did you notice the Government just took over a major website devoted
to Playstation hacking?

Under President Clinton's brain child, the DMCA.

It's always fun to watch a liberal's last grasps at credibility...you, me, or anybody else wouldn't be here discussing these legal issues if it wasn't for Clinton. The DMCA allowed the feds to bust the dealers (in many cases because of how the devices were marketed) which got us to where we are today.

No Clinton = No DMCA
No DMCA = No DTV mailing list

[godzla]

Originally posted by tcan
I just committed 15K to fight this Scare Campaign... Silly you say!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

$15,000?

[tcan]

$15,000 gets you to day 1 of a jury trial, but that is the
Trust commitment. If dave is real stupid, by that time, he will be easy pickens. Its one step at a time and pay as you go.

[Electraglide]

:R
You are a very funny Republican, alittlebirdie

I just love the way your party is keeping our wondeful economy going. And how its alienating the US from its alies and how its running the Federal defecit to all time highs.

Enjoy the few bucks extra your getting back on your taxes now, later on down the line, you'll be paying it back 2 fold:gg

Oh, BTW, you seriously dont think that they couldnt off lobbied another president ( democrat or republican ) and gotten the DMCA through? Its politics, money talks and all politicians are basically the same:eek:

[Patrick Henry]

I just love the way your party is keeping our wondeful economy going. And how its alienating the US from its alies and how its running the Federal defecit to all time highs.

There's nothing any more amusing than people talking about politics, when they know nothing about them! Please keep entertaining me.

[REDx]

Electraglide i could pick your post a part
but lets stick to the topic please.

[ALittleBirdie]

BTW, you seriously dont think that they couldnt off lobbied another president ( democrat or republican ) and gotten the DMCA through? Its politics, money talks and all politicians are basically the same

Yup...I can see the Republican party working with Hollywood on this one...They get along so well recently :R

[BuzzSawOne]

Not to stay off post, but the point of the political comments are just that.... The DMCA would have probably been brought in by one party or the other as Hollywood is comprised of influential people, predominantly Jewish.....
The point is it was CLINTON that actually did it, so he bears the responsibility for that one. Now, with the powerful elite in the entertainment world (i.e., Spielberg for one), that is the major reason for the current administration to be so supportive of Israel, which is why the Arab and Muslim countries hate us....
Until we realize that ALL political entities, no matter what party, are doing nothing but selling us out.... We will suffer. The crackdown by DAVE and the FBI is just another example....

Lets move on, or switch this to another forum....

Buzz :mad:

[Mechanic]

Let's drop the political crap!

[BubbaHill]

If you are sued, your attorney should file a motion to dismiss
the claim under section 2512. If successful, this will make it impossible for DIRECTV to win its lawsuit against you without
proving you intercepted or used the satellite signal without authorization. But how is DIRECTV going to prove that you used
their signal? I know they will allege it in your letter, but
where is the proof?


Lakeshore Law Center
Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
27758 Santa Margarita Pkwy.
No. 394
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
949-709-5330
949-709-5377 (fax)

EMAIL TO: wilens@cox.net

Source:
http://www.lawyers.com/lakeshorelaw/directv.jsp

[newideas]

Congrats on your fortitude, winner in SC!
Sorry about trying to stop the Clinton
bashing...just started every other kind
of bashing. The point at which people start
getting religious about enforcing every law on
our books and putting drones in our airspace
makes me thirsty for LaBatt's (me and Ted),
and no one in the South could ever have any
kind of legal --- again.

[MantisQT]

If you all are passionate about politics, please go to the poll and show your true color. Thats all I want to say about this subject. All the bashings do not change anything. I like the attitude of dolphindave who stands up for himself in the court of laws. Best of luck to you!

[JD490]

No one knows if a jury will make the leap from purchase of a device to use of that device. If Dave can show proof you purchased it, and had purchased a receiver and subscribed at one time they might be able to make that leap. Jury's make these kinds of leaps all the time. If lawyers could predict jury verdicts there would be very few civil trials. The only reason they go to trial is because both sides think the jury will see it there way. Remember jury's are made up of anyone. My prediction is the jury won’t make that leap. Oh to the person that made the Jewish statement I take offense to that the DCMA has nothing to do with Jewish people.

[BuzzSawOne]

Point to be taken is that Jewish people predominantly run the entertainment industry, politicians like the money that is in Hollywood, therefore the DMCA. Also the #1 reason we protect Israel so vehemently, (even though it causes about 60% of the world to despise us and about half of them want to see America go down) is because of the Jewish wealth and influence in this country.....Money is the only thing that talks on capitol hill.
Paint it what you want, I just speak the truth. I am sure that there will be all kinds of "he's a racist" comments now. Oh well.

Buzz

[Electraglide]

:R

whew, opened a can of worms:eek:

How about rico rodriguez getting his butt kicked in the first round?:D