Nothing wrong, no Lawyer

[PaidSubscriber]

If someone has truely done nothing wrong and have a reason for whatever they purchased, why do they need a lawyer? Hasn't DTV paid all the filing fees? Can they just show up to court and tell the judge what they did? It seems that this would be the best thing to do, call the people on the first letter and try to explain. If they do not see it your way, send a certified letter to them (for your proof that you tried to work it out), when a summons comes then respond, then show up to court on the assigned day and say whatever you need to? If you are innocent woudln't a judge find it that way (or so they should). It makes no sense to spend ANY money on a lawyer to defend for something you did not do, or to pay a settlement for something you did not do.

[FrostedGlass]

PaidSubscriber: Hello Dave. How are you? How goes the extortion letter campaign? Is your new tactic to encourage people to not contact counsel so that they show up poorly prepared and informed?

Thanks for stopping by - don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[supermonkey]

LMAO @ FrostedGlass

[fnbrowning]

PaidSubscriber;

Do you ever get an attack of conscience, working as you do for a company that lies and extorts to the extend that yours does?

While you dark minions are sliming around in "Signal Integrity," trying to destroy citizens through financial threat, do you ever hear about the lawsuits DTV has lost over the Intellectual Property rights that your corporation has stolen?

Next time you think you are on the right side of things, look at the other fools next to you, and it should be easy to see how you are really no different than the corporate idiots employed at Enron that believed the company lies.

Speaking of “Signal Integrity,” what was done to your brain for you to have ignored the obvious similarity to the doublespeak used in Orwell’s “1984?”

Signal Integrity = Ministry of Peace

[XMyth]

I agree with the above posts that PaidSubscriber sounds suspicious...but I've wondered this myself. I know that *EVERYONE* says that you shouldn't go to court without a lawyer cause you'll get screwed...but if the onus is on DTV to prove that you stole signal...what will they do if you don't show up with a lawyer and you just say that...you bought the device and couldn't figure out how to use it...or you use it for standard smart card programming only...What exactly will Dave's lawyers try to pull that you can't handle? Anyone that has actually tried this ?

Again, I'm not suggesting this strategy...I know NOTHING about how a courtroom works....I've never had to go to court for myself...I would just like to know what will happen if you do what I said above.

[DoctorNik]

My advice to FrostedGlass and fnbrowning...

Grow up and get a life.... what gives you two the RIGHT to accuse someone that has a legit question, and possibly some advice, that MAY NOT agree with YOUR opinion, of being DAVE???

Enough of this BS already!!!!

think on this....
IF the person was DAVE or worked for DAVE somehow,, WHAT benefit would it be for him/her to suggest something like that?? What benefit to DAVE?? Maybe a ruling in DAVE's favour because the accused didn't have representation?? What about a ruling in DAVE's favour if the accused HAS representation,,,


Oh wait... I get it.... !!!!

I finally see what's happening... yeah.... WOW,, shoulda seen it before,, but never recognized it for what it was...

You guys (and all the others that shout the 'you must be DAVE' crap... ARE IN FACT DAVE!!!... causing discension and stirring up chit.. yeah... jeez... I shoulda seen it before... man,,, how f'd up can ya be to miss something as obvious as that...

anyway,,, your plan isn't working 'DAVE'... so go back to your hole and think up something different.....

(btw,,, how do you like being accused now??... before hoppin on your keyboard and joining the rodeo, next time,, THINK)

[Patrick Henry]

Paranoia has now taken over common sense. I wonder if witch hunts will now be reinstated?

[tcan]

when a summons comes then respond, then show up to court on the assigned day and say whatever you need to?

The problem with your plan is that when you are served.. The legal paper war starts... and you or your lawyer must respond.. You won't get your chance to plead the case before a Judge, as you describe, until discovery (all facts are agreed) is completed...You need a Lawyer or a lot of legal smarts (understanding Court procedure).

[auswalk]

Here's the thing, Dave has started a war by carpet bombing all end users with extortion letters demanding absurd settlement fees. If I ever get a letter b/c I happened to be a user of a website, I will fight it all the way. I couldn't sleep at nite knowing this incompetent ----- got the best of me. If dave thinks he's going to beat me, he's sadly mistaken. He'll have to beat me some other way, like coming up with an encryption technology that I can't decode. Then I will bow my head and say he won and go on my way. Probably get laid more too.

I advise all to donote some money to the defense funds here. It's going to a good cause.

[yellaboyla]

You can always grab a law book or 2 and go PRO SE. Filing a couple motions to dismiss and see what flies.

If the judge goes along with your evidence of being innocent, then he can dismiss before trial. You need some type of legal knowledge or advice to proceed.

If you make a mistake, u may hang yourself.

if u file all the right papers and u make it to mediation, chances are it will be dropped by DAVE. They have taken no-one to court but DEALERS.

There are tons of docs on the net on how to file motions in a civil procedure.

GOOD QUESTION. I am DAVE too, or so I was told. I will call you later on our DAVE phone so we can poke fun at the guys here at the den that figured us out!!!

[PaidSubscriber]

Well I can assure you that I do not work for DTV, but I do not care if you feel that way either, this is a place to discuss problems amongst peers and try to work out solutions, not accuse people of diferent things (in fact isn't that what is being discussed here, accusing the innocent). My next question is: lets say that one does a little reading to at least get the basics. If DTV tries to drop the case before it gets to trial, can one say no, they want to go to trial? It was mentioned in another thread that if you countersue this would happen, but it was not discussed in much detail.

[crownvic]

How would DTV benefit from posting this,I agree with Doc Nik.
If you can't afford an attorney and can't borrow the money it will be better you respond to the summons than to simply ignore it.
SURE it will be better if you get legal council but alot of you don't seem to understand that if a person does his homework and makes an attempt to defend himself,it is much better than crawling in a corner HOPING it will go away. It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to file an answer to the summons and to read and take it one step at a time.
Better than running and getting a Default judgement,which quite a few have already done.

[fnbrowning]

I think DoctorNik is in attack mode. Good for him.
I know DoctorNik is purposefully ignoring the old maxim that "He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."

Proceedings where the accused represents himself are the bane of a Trial Judge's existence. Invariably, the accused does not know court procedures or the rules of evidence. The trial Judge has the responsibility of explaining everything to him. When you think that it has taken a lawyer three years of law school, a year of articles and a considerable amount of time observing in the court room to reach a point where she knows what to do, you can appreciate that the judge has a very difficult task.

Anyone that does not offer this insight is either foolish themselves or deliberatly misleading.

Who among us would deliberatly mislead?

Go on and answer that DoctorNik; I have no fear of you.

[Bohanjian]

If you are being sued, and you are representing yourself, you're like a lamb playing with the wolves. They present all the evidence they have and you say--but your honor I didn't do it. OK sorry Dave attornies, says the judge, you have wrongfully sued and innocent citizen. Please come to my chambers and I will spank you--very very hard and you will says thank you may I have another.

OJ should have said--I didn't do it. Maybe he came up with, "if the glove don't fit you must acquit"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxthis portion of the post was delete as it offended someone.


Perhaps when Martha Stewart gets her indictment she could simply tell the judge, "I did nothing wrong, and you really could make a nice curtain from your black robe, your honor".

A person who acts as their own attorney has a fool for a client. Remember that cliche ? It is really true. Don't represent yourself unless that is the only thing you can do. If you do, be extremely prepared, read books on procedures, evidence,etc., and how to act in court, because the judge might cut you some slack, but basically you are bound to all the rules of the court and the law (just as if you were an attorney), and you mess up, you hang yourself. You could try the ironside's wheelchair or the Perry Mason haircut or the LA Law suits, but don't think that will help.

So get proper representation, period. Having an attorney does not make you appear more guilty, it is what prudent people do when they are confronted with legal issues. Do you see a heating and cooling contractor if you get a into an accident and hurt your back ?

Enough rambling. Read some of the posts and articles (the strong majority recommends getting council), most of the time, Dave doesn't go after the people who are properly represented. Look at the recent Pennsylvania suits files, not one person sued had legal council--per the article. That is echoed in many other articles. He first carpet bombs the region, and sees what he can get. The survivors emerge from the rubble and then he snipes the easy victims as they are dazed. The easy targets he feasts on, like a pack of lions, they go for the weak defenseless prey. Certainly, having representation will make you more difficult to persue, and even if you settle, your attorney will make sure you current and future interests are safe. If you just sign whatever they give you, you may be open to criminal charges later, or more of Dave's extortion for the same case, but under a different law. You may allow Dave to revisit the same case! In many instances, if you show up to court with council, he has dropped the suit. Certainly this by no way means that if you have an attorney you will be safe. He probably measures each case carefully, and will only go to court if they are reasonably confident they will prevail.

Still---------------------------------------GET AN ATTORNEY------------------------------------------------------DON"T BE A FOOL----------

[Patrick Henry]

Look at the recent Pennsylvania suits files, not one person sued had legal council--per the article. That is echoed in many other articles. He first carpet bombs the region, and sees what he can get. The survivors emerge from the rubble and then he snipes the easy victims as they are dazed. The easy targets he feasts on, like a pack of lions, they go for the weak defenseless prey. Certainly, having representation will make you more difficult to persue, and even if you settle, your attorney will make sure you current and future interests are safe. If you just sign whatever they give you, you may be open to criminal charges later, or more of Dave's extortion for the same case, but under a different law. You may allow Dave to revisit the same case! In many instances, if you show up to court with council, he has dropped the suit. Certainly this by no way means that if you have an attorney you will be safe. He probably measures each case carefully, and will only go to court if they are reasonably confident they will prevail.


You might want to check Pacer Bohanjian. For if you did you would see a great many defendents do have lgeal representation. To make a blanket statement like that is quite foolish on your part. Most people don't get legal counsel until they are served with a summons. I also believe DoctorNik said it's better to repesent yourself than to completely ignore it. I'll never understand the mentality of some people in this forum.

And lastly, to disrespct the memories of two innocent people who were brutally murdered, by comparing those situations with these shows your total lack of humanity and compasion for mankind. Think about it!

[Bohanjian]

Read the post I mentioned "per the article". I was merely mentioning what was printed. The article is here in this forum. I don't have access to pacer, and my reference to Mr. Peterson was probably in poor taste (and I will delete it for your sake). Maybe you should read the posts carefully--think about it.

Also did you check pacer when the people were first served, several may have answered the comlaint after securing council and that would be updated on pacer. Anyway, I will post the article where the information was gathered. It is from Morning Call which is usually a reliable source.

[Bohanjian]

Reprint of article by David Slade

Direct TV files suits in Pennsylivania
By David Slade

Of The Morning Call

Satellite television provider DirecTV is suing hundreds of Pennsylvania residents in federal court for at least $10,000 each, in its nationwide pursuit of people alleged to have pirated the company's programming.

Residents of Lehigh, Northampton, Bucks, Montgomery, Carbon, Monroe, Berks and Schuylkill counties are among the defendants.

Across the country, thousands of suits have been filed against people identified by DirecTV as having purchased ''pirate access devices'' to view the company's programming without paying for it.

The devices allow people to intercept the company's satellite signals, reprogram DirecTV systems to receive programming they didn't pay for, or repair equipment damaged by illegal operation, according to the company.

Many of those now facing lawsuits rebuffed letters that DirecTV sent last year to more than 100,000 people accused of purchasing the devices, demanding payments averaging $3,500.

''They were all either using or possessing an illegal device,'' said DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer.

The company says its 11.4 million subscribers pay between $34 and $88 a month for basic satellite programming packages.

However, unlimited access to all DirecTV programming could be worth thousands of dollars a year.

Lawyer Andrew D. Kessler of Elkins Park, Montgomery County, who has represented more than 100 people who received the demand letters or were sued, believes some who did nothing wrong will be forced to spend thousands defending themselves.

''Without question, it is illegal to intercept and decrypt a satellite signal, but they are suing with little or no investigation,'' he said.

''If they were open to sitting down and talking, they would find people have many legitimate uses for these devices,'' Kessler added.

DirecTV's basis for the lawsuits is customer records the company obtained when it raided companies shipping signal theft devices, Mercer said.

''We seized these records about two years ago in a series of raids in several states,'' he said.

The raids were carried out by company investigators, accompanied by police ''to maintain order,'' Mercer said.

The California corporation was able to obtain search warrants for the May 25, 2001, raids because of a provision in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The equipment DirecTV was after included devices to reprogram the credit card-size removable access cards that allow in-home satellite receivers to unscramble DirecTV programs.

Kessler said some devices, such as a smart card programmer, are commonly used for legitimate purposes such as corporate security systems.

''I can't say anything bad against DirecTV for protecting their signal,'' Kessler said, adding, ''I would just be happier if they would pursue people with a little more discrimination.''

Mercer noted that many people who were sued last year or earlier this year already decided to settle with DirecTV.

''If you're stealing satellite TV signals, you're going to pay a price far greater than if you had been paying for it,'' he said.

''At the same time, you're risking your reputation in the community,'' he added.

Kessler said it's probably cheaper to settle than to pay a lawyer for a fight in federal court.

''If will take less than what it costs to defend yourself, some people will borrow the money and buy their peace,'' he said. ''In federal court, it's a rare day to find a lawyer who will enter his appearance for less than $5,000.''

Most of the lawsuits were filed on May 23, the last business day before the two-year statute of limitations after the raids would have expired.

''That's why you're seeing a wave of these things,'' said Mercer.

DirecTV filed 19 suits in federal court in Scranton and 33 in Philadelphia on May 23. Another dozen suits were filed earlier this year in the two federal courts, and a few were filed last year. More than 230 defendants were named in eastern and central Pennsylvania.

''The message is: This is thievery, it is theft, it is a crime,'' said Mercer.

******************************************************************
None of the people sued May 23 has a lawyer listed on the dockets yet, and might not be aware yet that a suit has been filed.
******************************************************************

Some of those sued in January in Scranton already have settled for undisclosed amounts. Others, who did not respond to the January suits, have seen default judgments of more than $10,000 entered against them.

None of the suits has gone to trial in Pennsylvania.

[markAdeck]

I suspect Bohanjian is either a law student, dating a law student, married to an ambulance chaser or thinking about marrying one. All the forums I cruise and I have never seen anyone pounding the gavel more for hiring one of the what for the most part are the bottom feeding scourge of civilization. They literally live off of other peoples misery. What a great way to make a living.

[tcan]

Kessler said it's probably cheaper to settle than to pay a lawyer for a fight in federal court.

That sounds like a CPA, not the advise of a REAL Lawyer.

[REDx]

Originally posted by markAdeck
I suspect Bohanjian is either a law student, dating a law student, married to an ambulance chaser or thinking about marrying one. All the forums I cruise and I have never seen anyone pounding the gavel more for hiring one of the what for the most part are the bottom feeding scourge of civilization. They literally live off of other peoples misery. What a great way to make a living.

what about me lol. i say get a lawyer about every
other post lol.

[crownvic]

Originally posted by REDx
what about me lol. i say get a lawyer about every
other post lol.


And really REDX that is the best advise;)
the statement I made was for someone who absolutely could not afford one...
But the original poster was accused of being DAVE because he voiced his opinion and I thought that was wrong. If people can't reply in a polite manner without bashing "personally" I think they should restrain themselves from posting.

[ClausenLT]

I have to laugh at some of the things said in many of these posts. Many hit the nail right on the head. I think this is my first post here, but I whole heartedly agree, get a lawyer. My father had a friend who used to say, "Going into court without a lawyer is like going in there naked!"

I do paint repair for car dealers, and had a friend tell me he knows someone who has a bodyshop and a customer came in for an estimate and when he got the price for the repair he said he'd paint it himself. HAHA. Go ahead! It's ludicrous. Paint work is an art and a skill that take years to develop in many cases.

Any way, my point is, like one person stated, you don't hire a carpenter to fix your car. And you don't do the carpentry job if you aren't a carpenter.

Dave is just using typical corperate scare tactics, and if enough people fight smart it will cost WAY TOO much for them to continue. They are getting desperate! And they are using desperate measures!

[fnbrowning]

I suspect Bohanjian is either a law student, dating a law student, married to an ambulance chaser or thinking about marrying one. All the forums I cruise and I have never seen anyone pounding the gavel more for hiring one of the what for the most part are the bottom feeding scourge of civilization. They literally live off of other peoples misery. What a great way to make a living.
Now Get This!
If you've ever stood before a judge on charges {which I have} you'll be Damned Happy to have legal representation.

There is no good done by disparaging the entire legal profession, since there are quite a few sincere people trying to make a difference.

That being said, one could easily admit that the “bottom feeding scourge” comments are best descriptive of the corporate lawyer type of legal professional. I cannot imagine what unrealistic or improbable mental inventions it takes for an attorney to represent the CEO of Enron, or Worldcom, or to pursue cases for Dave. But make no mistake, Dave’s bottom feeders are serious and baneful. I would never trust them, or deal with them without help.

Speaking of Bottom Feeders - - -
Where have the Federal Judges been in all this? If DTV is allowed to manhandle the courts to justify their own corporate greed, where will it end? There are some very weighty arguments to be made and several federal judges stand to be exposed for their bias and personal benefit gained from rulings that have been made that smack of collusion.

There are several other arguments concerning the proprietary nature of DTV's signal and how DTV, using transmission equipment owned by the government, can get away with charging anything for the signal being rebroadcast to North America. I bet you didn't know about that, did you? Here is another. There is a section of the 1936 Telecommunication's Act which was not altered by the re-write that addresses "rebroadcast" signal as not having the protection of first and direct transmission rights to privacy. All satellite signal is rebroadcasted signal. Is it not odd that these federal judges that have become "experts" in this issue failed to address this? I think NOT! So, there are several little potholes that have been quietly side stepped by the courts to avoid exposing the whole argument for what it is. GREED at it's worst.

[witchunter]

watch the witch hunt stuff !!!


witchunter

[slowpok]

Don't know why you're here but keep posting.
People need level headed advice.
There are some pointy headed people here so watch out.

[look]

First off let me say that this is “America” (Just speaking where the end user cases are concerned, no offense to our Canadian brothers) and if you feel you have been wronged then SUE! It’s the “American way”, don’t you know. If you are sued by Dave then counter sue for double your legal fees. If Dave drop’s our case or the judge dismisses it because of cause (i.e. lack of proof or at Dave’s request), your case is still active and you will get the legal fees back (Hopefully). But it is a must the Dave is put on notice that it will cost him something to come after you. In all of the talk here about lawsuits filed, can someone find out how any people have countersued?

One other thing, to help all of those who can’t or won’t hire a lawyer. If the people who have lawyers and have filed for dismissal, could post their filing (with the names removed of course), it would help them greatly I think. Also it will help if everyone fighting these is on the same page.

[NotHome]

If you do file against Direct TV, they would have a lot of motivation to push your case through till the end. They would probably only drop their case if you agreed to drop yours in turn.

If your not squeaky clean I would not even try it.

NotHome

[look]

Then why hire a lawyer at all, just pay Dave his money. The reason to hire a lawyer is to win, if you know you will lose what's the point. Play for keeps.

[lsullivan]

Fla: We have been advised by a lawyer,looking for our business that a summons was issued on May 16, 2003 and we have 20 days to repsond. We have never been served with the summons. When we got the first letter we sent proof that items ordered were never received. Proof: AMEX credited our account for items that were ordered. Also, we have been a paying subscriber for 10 years. Anyway, just waiting to get served. Doesn't make sense as we can prove we did not receive equipment

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Look,

The purpose of hiring a lawyer is not only to win. It is to mitigate the damages paid if you settle. It is to be 100% sure that the contract of settlement does protect you properly in the future and to ensure they cannot come back against you. It can also protect you against the laying of any criminal charges and that can be done quite easily unlike what many people think.

So unlike what many think there are many good reasons to have a lawyer representing you in court APART from the fact that judges may rule against you if its close just to pass on the message that they do not want "pro se "defendants (which they don't).

If you listened to Paid Subscriber, people who REALLYdid not do what is accused don't need a lawyer. Well there are thouusands of innocent people charged with crimes and they all NEED lawyers and for many of the reasons I mentioned above.

If ONLY the guilty needed a lawyer, who would hire one. But it does not work that way. In actual fact, using a lawyer is almost sure to cost you less in total than NOT using one. If anyone earns their pay it is a GOOD LAWYER.

People should do as they see fit but I can assure you that the lawyers listed on my legal page at:

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

Have learned tricks and reasons that they can get settlements reduced or even dismissed but they are sure not going to advertise that. Having someone that you can trust in that courtroom is a big relief because he will be the only person siding for you. The rest of the system is stacked against you and especially so in the USA. If you read most of the posts above, you can see that there is precious little understanding of the legal system here and most people who defended themselves would get trampled in a heartbeat and end up on the court stairs shaking their head and wondering what it was that just happened.

I have seen a few people in court who did a fabulous job of defending themselves but they represent about 1/10 of 1% of the court cases I have seen. Not a very impressive number. Most people have no clue as to what they can or cannot do there.

Anyhow Good Luck to anyone who does it and YES it is much better than not defending yourself at all. But if you have Satellite TV, then you cannot afford NOT to have a lawyer represent you there. ESPECIALLY if you are not guiltyhttp://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"><font color="#FF0000" size="5"><strong><u>To </u></strong></font><font color="#FF4800" size="5"><strong><u>Th</u></strong></font><font color="#FF6200" size="5"><strong><u>e </u></strong></font><font color="#FF7002" size="5"><strong><u>RE</u></strong></font><font color="#FF9006" size="5"><strong><u>AL </u></strong></font><font color="#FFB508" size="5"><strong><u>Ki</u></strong></font><font color="#FFD014" size="5"><strong><u>ng!!</u></strong></font></a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!

[ClausenLT]

Thanks Slowpok, I'm here cause in 3 words, I hate Dave!...hahaha

Been coming here about 2 years now, but only rarely, and I finally got sick of calling Dave one time and having them tell me one thing, and calling later and them telling me something else. And then I disconnected, and they called us back and wanted to know why. We told them why, we wanted a certain package that we'd had in the past and one operator said we could have it, and another said no way!

They wouldn't give it to us, although I'd had it many times before, and after disconnecting, they offered it to me then. I told them to go screw themselves. I won't EVER give them my money again! They are lieing theives! Sorry, I get a little pissed about this. So right now I have like 5 channels, I won't pay for sorry cable either.

The comsumer has the right to CHOOSE who he is going to do business with. There are at least 50 painters doing what I do in my city. How many DSS provider's are there? What Dave does is absolutley extortion, and 100% against the law that the constution was based on!

[slowpok]

ClausenLT

I cancelled my service the second I found out they accused me of stealing their service.

I will never pay them another cent.

Anyone that does patronize these bastards after this is lowlife in my book.

slowpok

[REDx]

i have a sub and i think everyone in the
hobby should.

[slowpok]

I never thought differently.

[REDx]

ya just gotta wonder about someone who
lives in the US, and in this hobby
who doesnt have a sub.
oh well there are those kinds of people
every where.

[Patrick Henry]

The choice of having or not having a sub is up to the person. Anybody who tries to dictate to others are the type people YOU should worry about. Worrying about yourself would probably be more benefical than worrying about others. Hint, hint!

[REDx]

Originally posted by Patrick Henry
The choice of having or not having a sub is up to the person. Anybody who tries to dictate to others are the type people YOU should worry about. Worrying about yourself would probably be more benefical than worrying about others. Hint, hint!

i was only countering a post that might give a newbie
the wrong impression of what this site is about.

[Patrick Henry]

I seriously doubt a person would form an opinion from 1 post. But then again you never know.

[lsullivan]

Background: We are in Florida and received a copy of the summons from an attorney in Miami. Spoke to him last night, explained that we did order som equipment, however, we have a letter and receipt from AMEX that we did not receive equipment and were issued a credit. Which we also told those idots in Orlando but they paid no attention. Anyway, attorney wants $2500 (non refundable) + any extra cost that come up to help us and still doesn't know if the idots will aceept our paperwork showing that we did not get items that were ordered. We no longer have DT, but I called and requested a ledger from 1997 which shows we paid every month and that we ordered pay movies every month. We are thinking about sending all info to the idots again and see what happens, if they do not drop it, then we will appear at summons hearing and present what info we have, if it is still not thrown out, then I guess we will have to obtain this lawyers services. Anyone have any opionins on doing it this way? Thanks- Worried Wife

[Bohanjian]

If what is said is completely accurate you probably will be OK, but still not your best option. I would call around and see if an attorney will review the evidence and issue a response on an hourly basis. If you end up in court and the case is not thrown out, there is a chance, but very small, that the judge if in a bad mood, may not grant you an adequate extension to secure proper council. Plus you usually have to file an answer to Dave's complaint prior to going to court, so you will have to find out how to do that properly. Good luck, your case sounds very strong if it is totally accurate and documented.

[Teggie258]

I heard about this site from a friend. I have cable and having the same problems you are. I don't know if anyone can help me since your talking DTV, but I am in need of some help. Please I don't know what I can and cannot say, but if anyone can help I would appreciate it. I have done nothing wrong and they are sending me letters and calling my home phone off the hook. What should I do or where should I go if this is not the right website.
Please help me.

[XMyth]

Search for "the letter" here in the forums. Lots of people have been through that and have detailed everything that happened in their situation.

Also, check out http://www.legal-rights.org/

[REDx]

Originally posted by lsullivan
attorney wants $2500 (non refundable) + any extra cost that come up to help us and still doesn't know if the idots will aceept our paperwork showing that we did not get items that were ordered.

this would have cost you about 250.00 to resolve in
the letter stage. it doesnt appear you learned your
lesson. ill try and help anyway. talk to a lawyer
now or you may find it will cost you even more money
if you dont. try this site http://www.freedomfight.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=8

also ya might wanna talk to
Albert A. Zakarian, Esquire
zakarian@tampabay.rr.com
(813) 251-2200
2024 West CLeveland St.
Tampa, FL 33606

[crownvic]

yes redX apparently the latest magitude of lawsuits that were filed were against people who FAILED to respond to the letter.
This should be a lesson for future letter recievers "I Hope".:)
___________________________________________________________________
The lawsuits are filed only against those who have failed to reply to a letter from DirecTV demanding that they stop stealing the services, surrender the pirating equipment and pay damages of about $3,500 per illegal device.
_____________________________________________________________________

[Patrick Henry]

Actually, after reading several posts over many forums, many who were sued had contacted a lawyer and did have legal counsel.

[crownvic]

Originally posted by Patrick Henry
Actually, after reading several posts over many forums, many who were sued had contacted a lawyer and did have legal counsel.
I think you definetly reduce your chance if you contact a Lawyer,of course if they want you and have enough on you they will come regardless. I still would advise people to speak with an attorney at the letter stage if at all possible,It really can't do anything but save you bucks in the end run.

[REDx]

Originally posted by Patrick Henry
Actually, after reading several posts over many forums, many who were sued had contacted a lawyer and did have legal counsel.
i have read a lot of posts that say about the same thing.
when i did a search on the poster i also found that
they had posted earlier. that ether there lawyer said
dont worry about it, or there lawyer told dtv they would
see them in court and counter sue em.
the chickens are comeing home to roost.

[Patrick Henry]

With a little search and some reading you will find many people who have retained a lawyer and responded to the demand from DirecTV, but were still named in a lawsuit. It's not very wise to lead people on by telling them if they get a lawyer they will be safe. It's just as bad as telling someone not to get a lawyer. The truth is, no one knows what the legal counsel for DircTV is going to do. You don't know who they are pursuing or who they aren't. To say otherwise is only fooling yourself and others.

[crownvic]

No one is telling nobody anything ,each must make up there own mind .. No one said they would be imune to prosecution by retaining an attorney. Re Read my post.
.

[REDx]

Patrick Henry i dont know where you are comeing
from with that last post.
you are always better off with a lawyer than without.
just how is telling someone to get a lawyer, as bad as
telling them not to?
how safe you are depends on how good your lawyer is and
how strong your case is.
in the case of poster i was answering he already played
the wait and see. he did it without a lawyer. now he has
a summons to answer. so i guess you would say he isnt any
worst off because he didnt get a lawyer at the letter stage.

[Patrick Henry]

It's what you imply!!!!!!!! It does not matter that you get an attorney when you recieve your letter (unless you plan on settling). If DTV wants to pursue you they will regardless if you have an attorney. Retaining a lawyer makes no difference. Who's fooling who. Now if you do get a summons, it would be wise to retain an attorney. If you can not afford one and cannot afford a settlement, defend yourself. With the internet and some reading anything is possible and is much better than a default judgement.

I get so tired of people attacking others because they chose to not get an attorney when they recieved a letter. People need to get off their pedestal and realize not every one and every situation is the same. So much mis-information coming from both sides. Geesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I wonder WHY???????????????????

[REDx]

really give me one case where a person on
his own called dtv and got off.
if you wait to be sued it will cost more
to defend yourself than to get a attorney
involved at the letter stage.
or is it your position they should try and
go toe to toe with a billion dollar company
on there own. read a few books, study up on
the internet.

[Lager]

I am sure you have a ton of names of those that 'got off' with an attorney too right?

It does not cost you more if you wait to be sued unless you are specifically talking about settling. I am fairly sure that is your thinking so I guess if others knew this going in then what you are saying makes sense.

There is no going toe to toe if you ignore the bs letter they send. The latest number per dave regarding people sued is about 8,700 total. They have also stated they sent out around 100K letters. That is 8.7% that find themselves in court. I have a real real hard time believing that the other 90+% just caved in and gave dave some coin.

As PH stated a couple of times. Don't bag on people because they choose to ignore the letter and see what happens. They are no worse or better off unless they know 100% that they want to settle without a doubt. There are tons of people that managed to fly under the radar on this thing up until this point. I know the den seems to be the 'contact dave thru a lawyer if you get a letter' place but there are other opinions out there.


Lager

[tcan]

PH,
That is the best post yet, and I agree.

It's what you imply!!!!!!!! It does not matter that you get an attorney when you receive your letter (unless you plan on settling). If DTV wants to pursue you they will regardless if you have an attorney. Retaining a lawyer makes no difference. Who's fooling who. Now if you do get a summons, it would be wise to retain an attorney. If you can not afford one and cannot afford a settlement, defend yourself. With the internet and some reading anything is possible and is much better than a default judgement.

The intent of the letters is to develop "Court admissible" evidence or.... scare people into settling. The Shipping records etc. can be challenged under the Hearsay Rule as been obtained from a source that indicates "Lack of Trustworthiness". (The raid/search warrant justification will provide evidence of Dave's opinion of that dealers Trustworthiness)..

Dave has obtained intelligence... but making that into documented evidence(Court admissible) requires that fools engage in the phone call scam. If you admit anything & maybe simply by calling...the file is turned over to the lawyers..or you send them MONEY

I would advise anyone that wants to "punish" Dave to obtain a Lawyer
early... but you are correct to avoid contacting them by phone yourself... A simple registered letter denying the allegations does not provide them any supporting evidence...but becomes evidence in your Malicious Prosecution lawsuit... very helpful when determining intent and damages.

I am not a Lawyer... but that’s the way I see It

[Bstageb]

Lager..I think the numbers you are using might be old. It appears to me as though with the recent rash of filings due to the S.O.L. that closer to 50% of the people who got letters are now being sued. Either way, there are a lot of lawyers out there who would suggest you do nothing until you get a summons. This is either because they are not familiar with Daves tactics or they/you are in denial. I personally had 2 lawyers tell me to wait it out. Guess what? It was bad advise because now they know Dave is serious (summons in hand)bummer... :(

[Lager]

The 8,700 is a number given in a recent article (a couple of days old).


Lager

[fnbrowning]

Originally posted by Teggie258
I heard about this site from a friend. I have cable and having the same problems you are. I don't know if anyone can help me since your talking DTV, but I am in need of some help.
Teggie258, i don't know what problems you can be having that we are, because our signal comes through the air, and yours comes through a cable.
That is to say
If you are in a legal pickle because you did something illegal or wrong with a cable box don't look here. WHY?

DirecTV blankets all privately owned north American airspace with transmitted energy from their satellites. Since the transmission blankets large areas beyond the intended audience, the foregone conclusion is that the transmitter can exercise no control over who receives it. It can be argued then, when DirecTV has failed to sell a subscription to a home, DirecTV therefore has to abandon his signal when it has entered private airspace.

This is direct opposite of normal cable television where the programs are sent along cable or fiber optic, permission is gained to lay this cable across private and public property, and subscription agreements are created with local municipalities and private people who have invited the company to bring signals into their homes.

Teggie258; If you spliced into a neighbor's cable, it was wiretapping. If you put a modified or pirate cable box on any line the cable company can object. After all, it's THEIR coax. It's physical property. Different can of worms.

Sorry.

[REDx]

Originally posted by Lager
I am sure you have a ton of names of those that 'got off' with an attorney too right?

It does not cost you more if you wait to be sued unless you are specifically talking about settling. I am fairly sure that is your thinking so I guess if others knew this going in then what you are saying makes sense.

There is no going toe to toe if you ignore the bs letter they send. The latest number per dave regarding people sued is about 8,700 total. They have also stated they sent out around 100K letters. That is 8.7% that find themselves in court. I have a real real hard time believing that the other 90+% just caved in and gave dave some coin.
Lager

i see so now you advacate ignoreing the letter
im not at all surprised. burying your own head in
the sand or as you call it "rolling the dice" is
your call. telling others its as good as getting
a lawyer involved is just plain ridiculous.
didnt your little friend roll the dice and loose.
well i guess he was to slow.

[Lager]

Originally posted by REDx
i see so now you advacate ignoreing the letter
im not at all surprised. burying your own head in
the sand or as you call it "rolling the dice" is
your call. telling others its as good as getting
a lawyer involved is just plain ridiculous.
didnt your little friend roll the dice and loose.
well i guess he was to slow.

There is where you have something wrong. I have never said anything to anyone other than that they should ignore the letter unless they intend to settle. Why don't you surf around and find all of the people that say they contacted a lawyer after the letter. By and far the vast majority of them say the same thing. "My lawyer says to just sit tight and see what happens". Using daves own numbers you ended up having an 8.7% chance of finding yourself sued. Again you are wrong when you say "telling others its as good as getting
a lawyer involved is just plain ridiculous." Unless you want to settle it is better, not just as good, to ignore the letter.

"didnt your little friend roll the dice and loose.
well i guess he was to slow."

HUH?


Lager

[REDx]

so you know for a fact that 100,000 letters
went out and only 8,700 suits were filed.
you dont deny you advocate ignoreing the
letters.

[crownvic]

Let them do what they want REDX,It ain't no skin off my neck..
I have given my OPINION that is based on fact from what I have read and from what I have experienced.:eek:
Yes I said from what I have experienced but I am not at liberty to discuss it..it's also a matter of getting the right lawyer and not some greensheet/tabloid attorney.
I looked at this in 2 ways and for those that simply were flat broke my advise/opinion would be NOT to just let them get a default by NOT showing up or responding to the Summons but to try and defend themselves. After all what would it hurt,they was simply going to sit back and do nothing anyway..
So again IF YOU are at the letter stage,it will still be in your best interest to get an Attorney,which will not cost that much at that stage. I can ONLY speak of someone very Close to me,that by doing this it really DID pay off..So Far. :)
Good Luck to anyone,no matter what they may decide..People must do what they think is in the best interest of their own family.
I am not trying to Flame or Bash those that did not get an attorney,it's a decision they made and I can respect that and in NO way am I trying to throw it back in their face.
It is like I said THEIR life..
Vic.

[Lager]

Originally posted by REDx
so you know for a fact that 100,000 letters
went out and only 8,700 suits were filed.
you dont deny you advocate ignoreing the
letters.

I am using daves numbers. Perhaps you have some imperical data to contridict daves numbers? Of course I don't deny what I have said 50 times. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make my opinion invalid.

Lager

[REDx]

funny all i have seen is news reports.
dtv did say they planned to send out
100,000 letters. i have yet to see anything
other than a news release from them
stateing that they had sent out 10,000
letters so far. i do believe the number
is much higher. also in case you missed it
they claim 90% of the people who receive
letters settle. i believe that number is
way high.
so useing your sourse and your numbers.
100,000 letters 90% settle that leaves
10,000 who ignored the letters. minus
8,700 suits. leaves 1,300 people who lucked
out. thats 1.3%. so it would appear that
if you ignore the letters the odds are 98.7
you are going to be sued. now that is
useing your source and your numbers not
mine. ya just cant cherry pick the parts
you like .

[Lager]

I didn't figure you had anything. Dave has stated they did send out 100K, not that they intended to. Dave has said they filed suit on 8,700 people. I still haven't seen multiple statements from them that 90% of people settle. Please point me to those statements. I have a feeling they are telling the truth if they even stated it. I would guess they are saying 90% of those who are sued settle.

Lager

[Bohanjian]

It only makes sense, there are three camps, the ignorers, and the settlers and the fighters (by themselves or with attorneys). The settlers at the letter stage are the easiest money for Dave hands down. The next easiest is the ignorers, file a suit (form letter) pay a small filing fee, and wait for a default. Now that person either settles, ignores or must move to the fighting camp.

The people that try to answer at the letter stage are the fighters. This camp usually can tender better settlements or get dismissals (Dave may wait you out right up to the court date---I know this has happened--my attorney has shown me the cases), or have the whole thing end right there. (Now my attorney indicates he has about 150 active cases--of which only 10% -believe he said 13, are going to trial). Three of those were people who called themselves, admitted to dave what dave wanted, then recanted. I don't know how that will turn out, but they are going to fight. Most people he has sent several letters to dave for them indicating he plans to fight and why their case will be difficult to prove. They never send a response back saying they are dropping the possible suit, but many of these 150 have not heard anything in over a year. This doesn't not mean they will not get served, but it looks more promising than not answering at all.

Also, most of the articles printed do indicate that most people sued did not have council. Perhaps I'm reading those paragraphs wrong. Perhaps if you are represented, Dave is simply waiting to see how he does in a case or two before serving those people. Whatever the case, it is my conclusion, you are a harder target for dave, and when he's prowling for a quick meal, you may avoid being eaten. Perhaps my digestion of the what is printed and the data I have received from my attorney is absolutely erroneous, but I don't think so.

[REDx]

Bohanjian you and i agree. very good post.

[DIGGITTT]

I agree with Bohanjian, get an attorney!!! let someone who knows the law and your rights fight for you.It has been my experience in the past that those that go to court without proper representation (alone) are the ones that get screwed the hardest. give yourselves a chance to fight on a leveled playing field. when you go into a war without armour its only a matter of time before you are severly hurt. an attorney is that armour. its not to say that there wont be fines or that you will win the case but the severity of the outcome can be drastically reduced. I am by no means an attorney but I am smart enough to know that you dont have any rights if you dont know what they are.


DIGGITTT

[Lager]

It still amazes me that people equate ignoring a letter to ending up with a default judgement against you. As my previous posts have said again and again, if you get sued then get a lawyer.


Lager

[Bohanjian]

Lager,

You're correct, just because you ignore the letters, doesn't equate to a default judgment. Yet, getting an attorney earlier may allow you to mitigate the damage against you and you probably will get and have a much better settlement process and deal. Not only that, by "heading the letters off at the pass", you may not even get sued at all. I'm not saying this is for sure, but right now it does seem evident that dave is targeting represented people less than unrepresented individuals (at the letter stage). Perhaps the early represented persons will just get sued later, but it does seem fairly miopic, with the data currently available, to wait until you're sued to secure council unless you believe you'll be one of the lucky few lambs passed over by the blood thirsty wolves.

If you plan on going bankrupt, then I would simply wait to be sued, but you better make sure you are going to meet all criteria for chapter 7, because if you're only a chapter 13 (re-allocation of debt) Dave may be able to garnish wages and/or get a partial judgment. If you are chapter 13 eligible, this is the only reason, in my opinion, to wait until served. Perhaps if you have bullet proof hard evidence that you never ordered, received, and possibly lived where you are suspected of mis-doings, you are probably OK, but you will still have to answer the complaint yourself and present your evidence in the proper legal decorum. So even that scenario most likely necessitates legal representation.

[REDx]

Bohanjian the problem i have with Lagers arguement
is he claims there is only a 8 or 9% chance of getting
sued.

[Bohanjian]

Redx, I agree with you, ignoring the letter(s) certainly puts you as a prime target for Dave's version of the Tomahawk cruise missle. Again the article's I've read, the people I know that are involved, and my attorney have all echoed congruent sentiments. If you ignore the letters you have a very high probability of receiving a summons. Certainly higher than persons that are properly represented. People can sit here and squabble about particular percentages, but as I see it I believe the statment " you're less likely to be sued and have a better chance of receiving a better settlement if you are represented by a competent (has an understanding of this type of law and the current situation) attorney than if you are not" Now that is what I see currently, as time goes on perhaps everyone will be sued regardless if you're are represented or not. Time will tell, but currently you're better off in most situations to have representation at the letter stage.

[Lager]

Originally posted by Bohanjian
Lager,

You're correct, just because you ignore the letters, doesn't equate to a default judgment. Yet, getting an attorney earlier may allow you to mitigate the damage against you and you probably will get and have a much better settlement process and deal. Not only that, by "heading the letters off at the pass", you may not even get sued at all. I'm not saying this is for sure, but right now it does seem evident that dave is targeting represented people less than unrepresented individuals (at the letter stage). Perhaps the early represented persons will just get sued later, but it does seem fairly miopic, with the data currently available, to wait until you're sued to secure council unless you believe you'll be one of the lucky few lambs passed over by the blood thirsty wolves.

If you plan on going bankrupt, then I would simply wait to be sued, but you better make sure you are going to meet all criteria for chapter 7, because if you're only a chapter 13 (re-allocation of debt) Dave may be able to garnish wages and/or get a partial judgment. If you are chapter 13 eligible, this is the only reason, in my opinion, to wait until served. Perhaps if you have bullet proof hard evidence that you never ordered, received, and possibly lived where you are suspected of mis-doings, you are probably OK, but you will still have to answer the complaint yourself and present your evidence in the proper legal decorum. So even that scenario most likely necessitates legal representation.

As I said before, any decent lawyer would look at daves letter and tell you to sit tight and let him know if you ever get sued. There is nothing your lawyer can do for you other than arrange a settlement prior to litigation. I take that back, they can charge you some money for doing nothing. Look, say you have a valid reason/excuse/case when you first get the letter. You get a lawyer and they explain things to dave and dave says ok, go forth and sin no more. Do you think the same lawyer will charge you more or less money if you have been served and they perform the same function for you? Of course they will charge the same. And once again, to your second part, of course you should get a lawyer if you have been served.


Lager

[Lager]

Originally posted by REDx
Bohanjian the problem i have with Lagers arguement
is he claims there is only a 8 or 9% chance of getting
sued.


I am still awaiting your data as well as the sourcing for your 90% settle comments. I won't hold my breath.


Lager

[Bohanjian]

Lager,

Perhaps getting an attorney early can get the case dismissed prior to being served, that would be cheaper than if you waited to be served. The letter stage is just that, a few letters. The case, if not dropped by Dave, will be infinitely more expensive. The answer to the complaint alone will be high depending on the legal research the firm (paralegal, jr. partner, associate) has to do to defend your side of the story. Not to mention deposition, discovery documents, motions, etc, etc (not to mention getting expert witnesses if you attempt the legitimate use argument, and so on and so on).

Your method of waiting is one way of handling it and for some that is fine, to me from what I can gather, I'd rather have a defense ready to go, and be a tougher target from the get go. I look at Dave like he's Kurt Schilling, there is no way I can ever hit that cheese, so I want a DH like Bonds (forget he's in the National league) hitting for me early in the count and not when it is 0 and 2. But hey, that why this forum is here --- to exchange ideas and thoughts----our first amendment rights !

[REDx]

as i said before its your sourse
dtv. do a search its there.
as far as not costing more if you
wait for suit. if your sued someone
will have to answer the suit. in federal
court the attorney who answers the suit
must get the judges permission to leave
the suite. that means he has to get a
couple of thousand to answer the it.
anyone who listens to you will get what
they deserve.

[Lager]

Originally posted by Bohanjian
Lager,

Perhaps getting an attorney early can get the case dismissed prior to being served, that would be cheaper than if you waited to be served. The letter stage is just that, a few letters. The case, if not dropped by Dave, will be infinitely more expensive. The answer to the complaint alone will be high depending on the legal research the firm (paralegal, jr. partner, associate) has to do to defend your side of the story. Not to mention deposition, discovery documents, motions, etc, etc (not to mention getting expert witnesses if you attempt the legitimate use argument, and so on and so on).

Your method of waiting is one way of handling it and for some that is fine, to me from what I can gather, I'd rather have a defense ready to go, and be a tougher target from the get go. I look at Dave like he's Kurt Schilling, there is no way I can ever hit that cheese, so I want a DH like Bonds (forget he's in the National league) hitting for me early in the count and not when it is 0 and 2. But hey, that why this forum is here --- to exchange ideas and thoughts----our first amendment rights !


I will agree we see things differently in the end. I just cannot agree that it is somehow cheaper to get a lawyer at the letter stage. It is not like your lawyer will not have to do the same research to convince dave that you should be cut loose.

Again, nobody is saying don't have a defense ready. Everyone should have a defense or a check ready if they get sued.


Lager

[Lager]

Originally posted by REDx
as i said before its your sourse
dtv. do a search its there.
as far as not costing more if you
wait for suit. if your sued someone
will have to answer the suit. in federal
court the attorney who answers the suit
must get the judges permission to leave
the suite. that means he has to get a
couple of thousand to answer the it.
anyone who listens to you will get what
they deserve.


I am so not surprised.

Lager

[REDx]

Lager math and logic was never your
strong suit where they lol.

[slowpok]

Lager....great posts.

My attorney (also a friend of mine) told me that this letter thing seemed like dtv was fishing and told me to wait for the summons.

The chances of losing in court are 0% right now. That's a fact.

I wonder what the settlements are that people so readily agree too, just before trial.
They are not allowed to say due to conditions of tese agreemaents I have read about. I wonder if dtv give them 2 years service free to keep their mouths shut.
That's just it... nobody knows.

Hire an attorney if you think this will benefit you but remember that dtv has nothing but sales receipts and what you tell them.

Watch all the doomsday people (for whateve reason) attack.

Good luck to the newbee


ALSO wouldn't it be nice if these morons that attack personally were told not to do this.??????

[REDx]

slowpok now that was a good post.

[mail284]

Originally posted by REDx
Lager math and logic was never your
strong suit where they lol.

REDx,
I have known Lager for a long time. He was just expressing his opinion. You want math? With a possible 100,000 letters floating around, and out of that 8700 people have been served. What does
that equal too? For argument sake, let's say 50,000 letters that
have been sent. Still not all the people have been sued.

Logic,?? Where is your logic? You have made lot's of post on this subject, but you have never received a dave letter that I'm aware
of. If this is true, why all the interest for the dave letter.
Most people are smart enough to decide on their own what to do.
You can ask 3 different lawyer's what to do, and you will come up with 3 different answers.

Unlike yourself, if I don't know. I don't hide this fact, by
bashing members so as to be little them on this forum. We are
all here to help, and learn. If someone out there takes your word
as gospel. You could cause them a great deal of harm. Please try
not to bash me for my opinion. If so, I know how to also, but will come down twice as hard. It would be best that we keep an open
forum, and respect the views of others.

[REDx]

mail284 i have no bone too pick with you.
if want a fight thats your choice i can
take myself fine.
if you read the posts i have posted you
will find that im the one who is flamed
by your buddies.
thats ok they feel they are correct.
if you read even this thread you will see
that i just exspanded on his so called evidence.
i really dont think you really believe there
is a 8 or 9% chance of being sued.
as im sure you know for every suit there is
at leased 10 to 15 people named. so if you
use lagers numbers of 8700 suits then that
is 87,000 to 130,500 people sued lol.
i dont believe thats the case. again those
are his numbers not mine. kind wants to have
his cake and eat it to.
the only real difference myself and your friends
have is i beleive at the letter stage you should
gwet a lawyer. that lawyer should be familar with
our issues. they contend you should hold tight till
you are sued. that is just not good advice.
my postion and reasons are clear in this thread.
in addtion i would like to see all the people who
can afford to fight and feel they can win to fight.

[mail284]

RedX,
You didn't answer the question. Have you ever received a letter
from dave? Also it's not 8700 law suit's, but 8700 people have
been sued. Some of the suits will list multiple defendants, and
some one per suit. Do your home work before you post. You always steer away from a direct question.

[REDx]

no i have not recieved a letter the
reason is i never purchased anything
from a US dealer. now you would know
that if you had done a search.
so do your home work before you post.
you didnt respond to whether you believe
that there is only a 8 to 9% chance of
getting sued.

on another note. did you see this and do you concur


Lager
Swashbuckler


Registered: Dec 1999
Posts: 246
After almost two years of around 1-300 cases a week dave filed 1450 cases in what is seen as the sol date. They have filed 31 this last week.
Lager

lets go to the low side and say 100 suits per week and add the 1450
thats about 11,850. times 10 people per suit thats 118,850 lol.
once again not my numbers. those are your experts number.

[REDx]

here just to give you a little
help with your homework.
http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=1967977036#post1967977036

[mail284]

Redx,
I'm going to be more like you, and dodge the question. If you
have never received a dave letter, why all the post on the dave
letter issue? hmmm? Yes,just saw the link, before posting. He
states that DTV can't sue everyone. Now back to the question.
Why do you post so much on the dave letter issue?????

[REDx]

then i guess you concur. if thats
your postion i guess you lack math
skills also and you logic needs work.
i answered your question and as far as
why do i try and help with the letter
issue. once again ill use your line
do yor home work.
at least i took the time to search and
read your posts here and a large number
over at WuMarkus.

[REDx]

my god man think read the whole page not
just the last post. what a bunch of cherry
pickers lol.

[mail284]

REDx,
Once again you want to twist things around. Just one more time,
I'll ask this question. Why do you post about the dave letter,
if you have never got one???

[REDx]

one more time do a little reading.
ya know your home work lol.
you just start talking like you
know something then when ask a
you dont answer. i know where your
headed. your no different than the
rest once your beat. come on say it
youll feel better lol.

[mail284]

Originally posted by REDx
one more time do a little reading.
ya know your home work lol.
you just start talking like you
know something then when ask a
you dont answer. i know where your
headed. your no different than the
rest once your beat. come on say it
youll feel better lol.

REDX,
Yes, you beat me, and I do feel better!

[slowpok]

I am now wondering why somone who has never received 'THE' letter from dtv is posting here and how they found this forum and why did they look?????

Why would 'one' look for this help, or discussion and post such opinionated posts when their life was not being uprooted as others at this site.

[Basileus]

Nationwide, DirecTV has sued about 8,700 such people, and more are being added to suits every day.

Response by the 8,700 people sued thus far has fallen into "different buckets," Mercer said. One bucket is filled with people who settle almost as soon as they get served with the suit; another with people who continue to ignore court action as steadfastly as they ignored the demand letter that preceded it and have default judgments entered against them; and a small group that defends itself in court and goes to trial.


Source: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/6016989.htm

[crownvic]

Come on Guys,
Lets get this thing back on track :)
"IT"S MINE" "NO IT"S NOT"
I don't think that helps anyone.;)

[Muggles]

Crownvic, is right.

Drop the kiddie playground who said what to whom, and get back to the reality of what is going on............

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, DTV has NEVER went through a trial. And had a judges decision rendered against an ------> (end-user).

However, I do not check court cases day-to-day.

And I have been wrong, in the past, once ot twice.:R

[REDx]

Originally posted by crownvic
Come on Guys,
Lets get this thing back on track :)
"IT"S MINE" "NO IT"S NOT"
I don't think that helps anyone.;)

VIC its the same thing with these people
when they are pinned down on the base
of there arguement they dont have one.
when ever they are ask, do you really
believe only 8 to 9% of the people
getting letters will be sued they want
to change the subject.
all this time they have been preaching
what people wanna hear. dont worry be happy.
there is almost no chance of being sued.
now those who listened to them are being
sued.



Hi Red,

You are quite right about this and I receive 4 to 6 emails a day from people who say "I should have listened to you earlier because now I got the summons and I am not prepared" What should I do.

The answer is obvious, do what you should have been doing all along. CALL A LAWYER.

I cannot help these people since I am (1) A Canadian and (2) NOT A LAWYER.

Folks this needs a lawyer just like a cancer operation needs a surgeon. Nobody else will do. Talk to one and you will realize that they do not charge that much for a discussion WHICH IS NEEDED.

Regards

ttrk

[crownvic]

What each person needs to do is read through the forums and decide for themselves what they want to do.
Some people are flat broke and can't afford an attorney,they will probabaly end up ignoring it anyway. If I was in a position like that(Which I have been) I personally would read as much as I could and give it my best shot in responding to the complaint,rather than sit back and crawl in a corner. An attorney seems to give some "Peace of Mind",so for those that can afford it and if they will feel easier then they should do it. What ever opinion I post is strictly my opinion,some of it will be from past experience and some will be from reading through the forums.
Some people reading HERE and other places are just going to have to READ through the lines and decide what is BS and not BS. If they can't they may be better off getting a Lawyer (If they can afford it).
Did that make sense?
Cuz I just read it back to myself and couldn't understand it..LOL:eek: :Z
BTW,
I personally have hired a Physiatrist,anyone ever consider that?
Defense by INSANITY..:Z



Hi Crown,

I think the real question is "Can anyone afford NOT to get a lawyer?"

The reasoning is simple. If you dont defend then they will get a $10,800.00 default judgement against you (as they have done in hundreds of cases so far) and that will either be paid or bring on a bankruptcy. If you can go bankrupt its one thing but if you have assets to lose then you really cannot afford NOT to hire a lawyer. So the options are really you make a good pro se defence, you hire a lawyer or you prepare to go bankrupt.

Regards and good luck

ttrk

[REDx]

Originally posted by Muggles
Crownvic, is right.

Drop the kiddie playground who said what to whom, and get back to the reality of what is going on............

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, DTV has NEVER went through a trial. And had a judges decision rendered against an ------> (end-user).

However, I do not check court cases day-to-day.

And I have been wrong, in the past, once ot twice.:R

as of today you are correct none of the end user
cases have gone to trial. i dont think dtv wants
to go to trial. if they do they will pick a case
that is a sure win. other wise they will drop any
iffy case's at the court house steps.



Hi Red,

In a civil court there is no such thing as a "sure thing" hence DTV NEVER go to court. They file lots of suits but they DO NOT go all the way for a ruling.

Bluffmanship at its finest.

Regards

ttrk

[Patrick Henry]

crownvic,
That's what I've been saying. But, unfortunatly some people can't UNDERSTAND.

REDx,
I think you need to re-evaluate you purpose here. I hope it isn't one of, you just enjoy reading what you type. And please remember your advice, just like everyone else's here isn't always right. Our job here is to help not to degrade and humiliate. Let's remember who the enemy here is. Enough said. Bye.

[yellaboyla]

Who cares how many letters go out?

Who cares how many are sued?

Why would you settle?

Why hire a high priced lawyer, pay him, then settle....geez

Facts:

No end user has went to civil trial. either settle or dismiss

No end user has been charged crimminally. higher burdon of proof

$100,000 fine? Not even a default judgemant has rendered this.

Can I go Pro Se? Did you learn testing? Self defense is easier, and free!

[Blixx]

As an attorney let me offer you some free advice. As a group you can contract for legal services for letter writing and filing motions. These are not exactly the cases we live for. Very little money and lots of paperwork.

You would have a better chance with an attorney experienced in intellectual property cases. However, these DTV cases are small potatoes and specialists are expensive. Remember, its not the end of the world so don't get paranoid. Chances are, even if everything went wrong you will still not be assessed the full penalty - probably on the order of $3K or less.

[Blixx]

...Plus DTV attorney fees.

[^Falcon_65^]

Originally posted by PaidSubscriber
My next question is: lets say that one does a little reading to at least get the basics. If DTV tries to drop the case before it gets to trial, can one say no, they want to go to trial? It was mentioned in another thread that if you countersue this would happen, but it was not discussed in much detail.

The short answer to this question is no. Thes cases are Civil complaints filed by DirecTV. If their counsel decides to dismiss the case against you, then you as a defendant cannot say "No I refuse to let you drop the case... you must follow through..." There is no provision which would allow for this.

But... as you said, a defendant in a civil case does have the right to file a counter-complaint. If you chose to do this (this would assume you have an attorney to file the counter-complaint) then that complaint would still have a life of its own aside from the disposition of the original complaint.

If your intentions are to recover some sort of monetary damagaes from DirecTV for their filing against you, then a countersuit would be the most likely way to do that. All of the cases I have seen to date which were dismissed (both by DirecTV's lawyers, and by the presiding judge) required that each side pay their own legal costs and fees.

Right now, the courts are giving DirecTV the benefit of the doubt in their filings... I say that because if a judge was really fed up with all these DTV cases and felt they had no merit in general, he would start requiring DTV to pay defendants costs when the case is dismissed... this would put a stop to all these filings quickly, but it hasn't happened yet. Right now the District Court Judges are content to just let each case develop and see what evidence comes out in the preliminary phases of the case.

One sidebar about malicious prosecution:

Much has been said abot suing DirecTV's attorneys for maicious prosecution. Two things to know about "MP" cases:

1) Malicious prosecution suits are filed against a complaintant's attorneys, not against the complaintant (DirecTV). So if you choose to sue for MP then you will be suing the law firm handling the case, not DTV.

2) Malicious Prosecution lawsuits are notoriously hard to win.... Why? Because these cases are against the attorneys and not the complaintant, an attorney is very careful about what kind of complaints they will file on behalf of their client. Think about it: if you were an attorney and knew that you personally could be sued for filing frivolous complaints in Federal District Court, would you just file any complaint your client asked you to? Probably not... you would make sure at a minimum that the case has some merit. In these cases, DirecTV's attorneys feel that they have good cases against people. They know they probably won't win most of them, but they know that the basic complint will hold up under the scrutiny of a judge. That's why they are filing them. Just becuase a complaintant loses a case, doesn't mean their prosecution was malicious.

Just wanted to throw that out there... not trying to give legal advice (that would be illegal :)) but I felt people should know a little more about what is involved.

[Bohanjian]

Doesn't mean you could not sue them in small claims yourself, probably wouldn't win, but you'll waste their time (which is big money).

[Bohanjian]

In addition, if you've developed any physiologic, or psychological damage because of these letters or lawsuit, and can document those with physician/psychologists records, you would have a much stronger case (intentional infliction of emotional/physical distress). Easier to win the MP suit, but still very hard. If you win, I would probably leave it at that. In exchange for not filing a counter suit, you could ask them for a public apology in the newspaper of your choice, but you probably won't get that either. So just count your lucky stars.

[REDx]

Originally posted by Bohanjian
Doesn't mean you could not sue them in small claims yourself, probably wouldn't win, but you'll waste their time (which is big money).
what everyone who is fighting this should do,is
a rule eleven challange at the out set of your
case. that way even if dtv decides to drop his
case later on, you can nail him for sanctions.
if thru discovery he doesnt provide evidense
that you stole his signal.
here is a copy of the federal rules for civil action.
got these from littleone over at the freedom fight site
http://www.lra4law.com/onlinehelp/fed/all/frci210z.htm

[jeffreywilens]

Just stopped by and saw the post about malicious prosecution (MP). Here's a few clarifications:

1. MP is filed against the party (DTV) and (if desired) the lawyer. The party can then assert a "reliance on counsel" defense. That is not likely to be successful here. DTV has its own in-house counsel and clearly is not relying on the small law firms bringing these cases but rather is ordering these lawyers to bring the cases.

So DTV will and should be the main target of the MP action.

2. MP is tough to prove but hardly impossible. If you can just get past motions to dismiss to a jury, DTV is likely to lose big time. The lawyers filing these are "just following orders." Many of them seem to be very unfamiliar with the legal issues. This is a very unusual set of circumstances.

3. Remember the key. You have to hold out for unconditional dismissal. If you settle, if you pay $1, that could result in forfeiture of your future countersuit for $100,000. Even if you pay zero, but "release" DTV from liability for a future lawsuit, then you have blown your chance.

4. Who cares if DTV does nothing. It does not cost you much or anything to do nothing once the Answer is filed. Eventually, the judge will toss out the case or pressure DTV to move to trial, which is when DTV is likely to try to dump the case instead (getting a release from you if you are foolish enough to provide one).

Jeffrey Wilens
Lakeshore Law Center
wilens@cox.net

[tcan]

Jeffreywilens,
2. MP is tough to prove but hardly impossible. If you can just get past motions to dismiss to a jury, DTV is likely to lose big time. The lawyers filing these are "just following orders." Many of them seem to be very unfamiliar with the legal issues. This is a very unusual set of circumstances.

The process in which a defendant MUST proceed (MP) is not clear to me.

A). Fed Rules kinda say that all issues must be addressed in the original suit.. which means you must file your MP as a counter suit.

B). I have read on your site & others that a successful defense of Dave's suit, and an unconditional surrender by Dave, would normally proceed your right to file a MP Lawsuit (after fact).

The issue is significant because defending Dave's lawsuit normally requires legal expenses to be paid by the defendant... but the after fact MP lawsuit may be commenced on contingency.

Any Comments ?

[jeffreywilens]

The individual state rules (California if filed here) would govern the MP action, not federal rules. It is NOT brought as a counterclaim in the same action because you have not obtained a favorable termination--yet.

I don't understand this statement:
<< I have read on your site & others that a successful defense of Dave's suit, and an unconditional surrender to his suit, would normally proceed your right to file a MP Lawsuit (after fact). >>

If you mean you cannot surrender to the DTV lawsuit and pay to settle it and then sue for MP, you would be correct under California law.

Please email my office directly for any clarification required as I do not have time to monitor this board on a regular basis.

Jeffrey Wilens
Lakeshore Law Center
wilens@cox.net

[tcan]

The individual state rules (California if filed here) would govern the MP action, not federal rules. It is NOT brought as a counterclaim in the same action because you have not obtained a favorable termination--yet.

That is "Very clear".... Thank You