Statue of limtations over!!!!

[FreeStuff]

The statue of limitations has ended for the vector technologies raid!!!!!! COnfirmed!!! It just ended in may So if you dident get a letter yet you wont unless the get your name from another dealer.
From a article:

"Freeman has been hired to represent DirecTV in nearly all the suits filed in Washington. He said the two-year statute of limitations on lawsuits from the seized lists has just ended. Any new suits will have to come from other investigations by DirecTV."

[slimboy]

Avantec/VCipher Letters: Round 2
Overview: Avantec Round 1

Some of you might be aware that when the DirecTV Letter Campaign began in 2001, many of the first recipients received letters based upon purchases made from Avantec/VCipher.

These letters were generated from records seized from Avantec/VCipher by the RCMP sometime in November 1998. [I will acknowldge and leave for another discussion the prospect of the authenticity of the records as I do not see it as fruitful at this time.] DirecTV obtained some, but not all, of these records and generated its first letters.

Making good on its threat to protect its signal property rights, which it is entitled to do under Title 18 and 47 of the United States Code, it eventually sued many of those persons (Avantec Round 1).

The Law: Statute of Limitations in End User Cases

Under Title 18 sections 2511, 2512 via 2520, there is a 2 year statute of limitations to bring suit against End Users on the grounds of stealing signals or assisting others to do so. 18 U.S.C. 2520. That means two years from the date that DirecTV "reasonably" could have found out about a particular purchase. Often times agreed to as the raid date of any particular device seller or website.

Under Title 47 section 605(a), the water is murkier. The current case law appears to allow a three year statute of limitations. Thus, DirecTV may be able to bring a suit as far out as three years from the date of the raid solely based upon 47 USC 605, even though the Title 18 claims would be stale.

The Avantec Round 1 suits were brought in a timely fashion for the most part.

Avantec Round 2:

Some of you may have noticed a second round of letters being sent by DirecTV relating to Avantec/VCipher purchases dating back to 1996. This has raised a few questions regarding whether a suit based upon these purchases are timely suits under Title 18 or even Title 47.

Unconfirmed information indicates that DirecTV may not have obtained all of the Avantec/VCipher information on the first go around. If this is true and substantiated, then the statute of limitations for actions based on these purchases would not have started to run until DirecTV's receipt of this new batch of information. In other words, depsite the date of purchase, the suit might be timely.

Despite the obvious dislike for the breadth of DirecTV's campaign against End Users, my experience has been that their attorneys conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times and would not knowingly bring a stale lawsuit. Out of an abundance of caution, you should assume that if you receive such a letter based upon Avantec/VCipher purchases, the suit may well be timely and part of the Round 2 information. You attorney can then make efforts to discover the facts for your particular case. Do not simply assume that the suit would be untimely and ignore the letters. You do so at your own peril.

Unresolved Issues:

How do you know if your name appeared in the information batch for Round 1 or Round 2? We do not yet know.

The analysis of whether you have a viable statute of limitations defense depends on your facts and the answer to the above question.


__________________
Albert A. Zakarian, Esquire
zakarian@tampabay.rr.com
(813) 251-2200
2024 West CLeveland St.
Tampa, FL 33606

DMDF Updates available exclusively here on Freedom Fight.ca

I know this isn't the same case but i was just wondering about Title 47 section 605(a)?

[BuckeyeLover]

here this might clear up 47 section 605(a), for you a little bit...

http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141249&highlight=47+section+605a

Here is a search result for "47 section 605(a)"

http://www.dsschat.com/forum/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=975452&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending


Here try this little button.
http://www.dsschat.com/forum/images/search.jpg (http://www.dsschat.com/forum/search.php?s=)

[slimboy]

Okay, i know where the search button is. Why would i use it to answer a question. I was refering to the fact that the statue of limitations may not be over for Title 47 section 605(a ). I wasn't saying that i didn't know what it was. Does that make it more clear for you :R

[BuckeyeLover]

Originally posted by slimboy
Okay, i know where the search button is. Why would i use it to answer a question. I was refering to the fact that the statue of limitations may not be over for Title 47 section 605(a ). I wasn't saying that i didn't know what it was. Does that make it more clear for you :R

Well I was reading the end of your post and it still looks like a question to me.

DMDF Updates available exclusively here on Freedom Fight.ca

I know this isn't the same case but i was just wondering about Title 47 section 605(a)?

[slimboy]

Your right it was a question. Like i said i don't think the S.O.L would be over for that title. I did not say i did't know what it was and would someone please explain it to me because i don't know where the search button is. Ive been hear for 2yrs reading for hours a day and i just cant find it! please someone show me.:gg