Double jepardy?

[kobiashi]

OK - a quick little recap to get everyone up to speed on a friends situation. Friend gets letter, gets nervous, calls Washington law firm for DTV (big mistake - I know!). Friend tells law firm that his company buys/uses many security related electronic components and wants to know what the letter is in reference to. Lawyer says that they realize that programers have legit uses and if he sends a letter saying that they were used for a legit use then they will drop the case. Friend now goes to lawyer (day late, dollar short) and has him send letter to DTV's law firm. All is well, for a time. Now friend get letter from End User Recovery Project wanting to talk about his illegal use of satelite equipment. So here is the question. Since my friend had allready made an agreement with DTV's legal representatives to settle this case, can he be charged again? Pretty sure this stems from the same purchase. My friend did not have his lawyer confirm this agreement before they sent the letter, but did put something in the letter recaping the conversation that occured between my friend and the lawyer. Any thoughts?

[REDx]

thought this post sounded familar. http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146242
wondered how that story ended i guess
it hasnt.
well the bad news is your dealings with the
dtv attorney wont do ya much good now.
end user group could careless. for the most
part they are not even lawyers. just collection
agents. you could say you have a signed release.
wouldnt phase em. you either settle or they kick
up to the legal department. they cant even make
a deal other than the one they have written in front
of them. to make matters worst when it was real lawyers
you could have dealt it down to 1,800 dollars.
good news once you get before a judge it will help your
case that the attorney for dtv didnt feel they had a
case worth pursueing.

[kobiashi]

REDx,
Thanks for the reply. I thought it was all over as well until I received a phone call from my friend telling me about this new letter(It really is a friend, not me trying to be evasive). How can DTV representatives agree to settle and then have its own agency charge him for the same thing after that? Isn't that some form of double jepardy? Basically they have gotten him to admit that he received equipment in exchange for not pressing charges, then they are turning around and using that evidence to proceed with their case. My friend is having his lawyer send a letter to this End User Recovery Project's Bill Pitzl and restating what had allready been aranged. Isn't DTV bound to its prior agreement? If not, then why should anyone sign off on any settlement deal if DTV can just turn around and charge you again?

[REDx]

correct if your lawyer had a verbal agreement
with dtv's lawyer. the suit would be thrown out
and sanctions would be in order against end user
group. UNLESS they have new evidence,
other than the purchase of card reader in question.
with that said: the twist is if you read the
cases as they proceed thru the courts. they are dropping
the purchaseing of pirate equipment charge and just
going with the signal theft part.
im attaching a post on this subject by Mr. Zakarian esq. a lawyer
who handle these cases for many members here.

Zakarian
Land Lubber
Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 10

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.

[kobiashi]

REDx,
Thanks again for your help - you rock! Unfortunately my friend did not have his lawyer confirm the deal prior to sending his initial letter, so the only contact was between my friend and DTV's lawyer. I'm willing to bet that they will deny that any deal was ever made, and since it was not between two lawyers that it is not legally binding. I do have one other question for everyone - in all of the posts I see DTV referred to as End User Recovery GROUP not PROJECT as in the letter my friend received. Are they one in the same? He said that the letter looked very "amatuerish" and wondered if it was legit. Could all of this be a ploy by someone else trying to cash in on a bad situation? Has anyone heard of Bill Pitzl? His title on the letter is that of "investigator" not lawyer. Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks.

[Cherry Coke]

There is no double jepardy in civil in the sense that #1 there appears to be no signed deal, so it is not dismissed with prejudice nor stipulated releases... and #2 DTV can not release you from any any other companies claims...

Let's say NDS things they have been damaged by you... you have no release fro mthem... let's say Dish wants to go after you... where is your release form them...

I cetainly understand why some people settle, but unfortunatly, it may not be over for them.

[kobiashi]

Does anyone know if End User Recovery Project is the same as End User Recovery Group? Just trying to see if this letter is legit. Thanks.

[REDx]

as far as we know yes.

[kobiashi]

Thanks REDx - I will pass the info on.