lets look beyond the letter.

[REDx]

those here with logical minds need to
start looking beyond the letters.
we need to be looking at defenses for
signal theft.
the letters and the summons are too
different matters.
the quetions here in the very near future
is going to be about answering summons.
the illegality of the equipment is only
one course of action dtv is sueing for.
the primary action will be signal theft.
as a matter of fact dtv has been dropping
the illegal equipment course of action with
little resistance once they file suit.
they do however press on with the signal
theft portion.
so its time to focus on the other course
of actions.

[BrainDamage]

Call me crazy.. but, the best defense is a good offense. A good offense is NOT to do anything illegal that would hurt you if you got caught.

The bottom line, as far as I know, (I am not an attorney, but I play one of TV) is that there is no way they can prove you did anything without coming into your home and seeing you do it.

They can say that you have a dish on your house and no subscription. So what?!? I moved into my new house, and it had a dish on it already. Really. That does not mean that I have to take the dish down, not does it mean that I have to setup DTV in my house.

So, how is DTV going to prove ANYTHING unless they have an eyewitness? Who is going to be that witness you ask? Simple, anyone in your house old enough to testify. Or, YOURSELF unless you are willing to lie under oath and face more severe charges such as perjury.

A word to the wise: Be careful.

[FullSlab]

<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank><img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>

[Azuka]

(I am not an attorney, but I play one of TV)

wow, BD, you sure do move fast, first fluffy now an attorney ;-)

I tend to agree with Brain, the *best* defence is a good offence. You have to know what your doing is illegal, atleast under the current law. As much as we disagree with it, it doesn't make it any less illegal.

Now, they can't *really* prove that you are in the process of stealing the signal, unless they can either get you to incrimate yourself (*cough* settleing *cough*), having a disgrunted friend, girlfriend or someone in your home who they can easily threaten to spill their guts (son, daughter, wife..)

Now, if you *do* have a sat outside when you moved in, they might question why you have receiver equipment hooked up to your systems without cards (say, you've hidden the card.. etc..) thats where (*I think, not know*) (ok, damnit I can't think of the word, its where they try to bust you on only speculation) evidence comes into play.

blah, brain fart (or atleast shutdown..)

This is where having a few legit subs comes into play, if they come in, see 3 tvs, and you have 2 legit subs, then you can easily say, I just bought the third receiver, and haven't ordered service for it yet.

I have a plat sub. It actually is cheaper then cable down here, *plus* it stays up longer (no joke!) the lure for me is learning.. that and getting what I can't have (NRTC radio, blackouts, locals in other areas, you know, stuff your not *allowed* to get, even if you can afford it.) To be honest tho, the plat sub is for my wife.. I hardly ever have a chance to watch a whole lotta tv.. (work, and amazingly enuff, this forum. However that doesn't justify what I'm doing, and still doesn't make it any less illegal. ;-)

There was a point, prolly somewhere barried in this message. At any rate, I think I'm gonna go lurk around some more ;-)

[corvette80]

PERJURY
Do the names O.J. and Bill ring a bell?

[49erMan]

Originally posted by corvette80
PERJURY
Do the names O.J. and Bill ring a bell?

Yeah! OJ is probably on the golf coarse right now and Bill is probably getting a little head....trim....??

[crownvic]

Well perjury hmmmmmm,
Would we have a perfect system if everyone told the truth in court. Of course I would not suggest that someine lie over an issue such as this,you are not being tried for murder.
I don't post much in this forum because EACh and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The reality starts when you are in front of the Judge,not when you get the letter or summons but when you are actually in the court room. I just wonder how many will have a (SCREW DTV) attitude when they are in front of the Judge. I usually try not to voice my personal opinion,I leave that up to my attorney to speak on my benalf. So that being said let me at least close by saying THIS!!
At least consult with an attorney and pick him very closely,not some one out of the local GREENSHEET who deals with all aspects of the law. Cuz this ain't no divorce case..LOL.
Have a pleasant and full filled day,may the GOD of your choice be with you.:gg
HI REDX,
I always enjoy reading what you have to say.
;)
And to my friend BRAIN, the RIN TIN TIN of the BS'rs LOL.:gg

[tcan]

I just wonder how many will have a (SCREW DTV) attitude when they are in front of the Judge.

This Forum is full of miss-information and half truths... I think that most are "Losers" that settled W/O a fight.

1. Perjury is a criminal offence that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.... Civil cases "never" result in perjury charges.

2. The under-oath Discovery is not a free-for-all and is confined to the evidence (so called) that Dave has presented. Your Attorney is present and "WILL" object to any questions that violate your rights.

3. The Judge has a constitutional obligation to protect the rights of the parties... he is not your enemy.

OJ… The evidence provided by the FBI Labs was from pictures obtained from a NBC- NFL broadcast @ Bufflo in which he was wearing Look-a-like Sneakers. I have seen the resolution obtained from 525 NTSC (interlace) blow-up’s and IMHO it was the FBI that committed Perjury.

[Azuka]

3. The Judge has a constitutional obligation to protect the rights of the parties... he is not your enemy.

Which is correct, unless you start basically being an -------, treating the judge like he "OWES" you something, then he will be your enemy. Always treat them with respect, and don't sit there acting like your right and thats that.. (even if you are) they don't know that, and you have to *PROVE* your right.

[JD490]

(1. Perjury is a criminal offence that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.... Civil cases "never" result in perjury charges.)

So are you saying people could win in court by perjuring themselves in a deposition? According to my attorney he has seen Perjury charges against people in civil trials. Are you a lawyer why do you make these claims?

[tcan]

So are you saying people could win in court by perjuring themselves in a deposition? According to my attorney he has seen Perjury charges against people in civil trials. Are you a lawyer why do you make these claims?

I am saying that a Civil trial does not "ever" result in a perjury “Conviction”.... Is your lawyer saying that you can be found guilty of perjury, by the preponderance of the evidence...

It is harder to prove perjury than most people think.. If you have an Attorney you should have discused the questions, that you would have difficulty reponding without perjury, that can be defected by
"I do not recall" or other creative methods...

[crownvic]

Originally posted by tcan
I am saying that a Civil trial does not "ever" result in a perjury “Conviction”.... Is your lawyer saying that you can be found guilty of perjury, by the preponderance of the evidence...

It is harder to prove perjury than most people think.. If you have an Attorney you should have discused the questions, that you would have difficulty reponding without perjury, that can be defected by
"I do not recall" or other creative methods...
What you say is correct many DA's will not pursue Perjury because it is hard to prove,however I would not go around telling people to tell lies in a court of law. Really is it worth it over a Civil Suit,thats what you have to ask yourself and you are STILL under oath to tell the truth..