PDA

View Full Version : Letter from Mackenzie to cease and desist dsschat.com


RiseStar
August 31st, 2000, 05:53 PM
Crawford, McKenzie, McLean & Wilford

BARRISTERS × SOLICITORS × NOTARIES

Don J. Crawford, Q.C., B.A., LL.B. P.O. Box 520,

K. William McKenzie, B.A., LL.B. 40 Coldwater Street East

William G. McLean, B.A., LL.B. Orillia, Ontario L3V 6K4

Karen L. Wilford, LL.B.

Sheri L. Tornosky, B.A., LL.B. Telephone (705) 325-2753

Patrick J. Lassaline, B.A., LL.B. Telefax (705) 325-4913

Timothy G. Anderson, B.A., LL.B.

Gregory Cheung, B.A., LL.B. Internet: mclaw@mclaw.ca

Douglas R. Downey, B.A., M.A., LL.B. www.mclaw.ca (http://www.mclaw.ca)

Susan C. Reed, LL.B.

Counsel: Hon. Doug Lewis, Q.C., F.C.A., P.C.

August 31, 2000



BY EMAIL TO xxxx@xxxx.xxx and by REGULAR MAIL



(Name removed)

(Address Removed)

Re: Website known as “DSSCHAT.COM”

Advertisements for Counterfeit Access Cards (Sometimes Referred to as “DSS Test Cards” or “Smart Cards”),
Software, Technical Assistance and/or Other Illegal Satellite Signal Theft Devices

Dear Technical Staff and Advertising Director:

We represent News Datacom Ltd. and NDS Americas, Inc. in the investigation of and litigation regarding
unauthorized reception and use of satellite television programming, including the manufacture, distribution and
sale of counterfeit access cards (sometimes referred to as “test cards,” “smart cards” or “H cards) and other illegal
signal theft devices and technologies (e.g., programmers, unloopers software, etc.).

The internet web site located at the URL “DSSCHAT.COM” is currently running advertisements for
counterfeit or compromised satellite access cards, software, technical assistance and/or other illegal devices as
well as services which permit or assist persons in Canada to decode encrypted subscription programming signals
which are transmitted via satellite in contravention of the Radiocommunication Act R.S.C. 1985 and amendments
thereto. Generally speaking the devices and/or services which are being offered also cause or contribute to
infringement of copyright rights of our clients and others while also constituting intentional interference with the
business relations of these companies.

Photocopies of certain pages that can be viewed on this web site are enclosed in the version of this letter
that is mailed to you. We refer you to the following sections of The Radiocommunication Act:

SECTION 9.

Prohibitions

9. (1) No person shall

(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in
accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;

SECTION 10.

Offences

10. (1) Every person who

(b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies,
operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a
reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for
the purpose of contravening section 9,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not
exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, or, in the case of
a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.

We refer you to the following sections of the Criminal Code of Canada. We would point out that in our
opinion the decoding systems which use the devices you are offering for sale are computers and that the activities
we describe contravene the following sections of the criminal code:

SECTION 342.1

Unauthorized use of computer

342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,

(a)

obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,

(b)

by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device,
intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any
function of a computer system,

(c)

uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system
with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an
offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or

(d)

uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to
a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence
under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)



is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction.

SECTION 342.2

Possession of device to obtain computer

service

342.2 (1) Every person who, without lawful justification or excuse, makes, possesses, sells, offers for sale or
distributes any instrument or device or any component thereof, the design of which renders it primarily useful for
committing an offence under section 342.1, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the
instrument, device or component has been used or is or was intended to be used to commit an offence contrary to
that section,

(a)

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding two years; or







SECTION 380.

Fraud

380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within
the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or
valuable security or any service,

(a)

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment
not exceeding ten years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a
testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the
offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or

(b)

is guilty





(i)

of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding two years, or

(ii)

of an offence punishable on summary conviction,






where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed
five thousand dollars.





SECTION 430.

Mischief

430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully





(b)

renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;











Mischief in relation to data

(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully





(b)

renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;

(c)

obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or

(b)

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.





The activities described also constitute infringement of sections of Copyright Act:

The activities, services and wares described on the web site mentioned above contravene these laws. In
addition the service and wares offered on these sites constitute unlawful interference with the business and
contractual relations of our clients and their customers.

Our searches have determined that you or your business is an internet provider which is storing,
supporting, servicing, and/or maintaining the abovementioned web site. This will therefore constitute notice that
(1) informs you that illegal activities are taking place through or in conjunction with your service and (2) demands
that you immediately stop supporting, publishing, or maintaining this web site.

We note that the Canadian Association of Internet Providers has published a ‘Code of Conduct’ which
states:

“5. CAIP members will not knowingly host illegal content. CAIP members will share information
about illegal content for this purpose.

6. Although Internet providers are unable to monitor all content, CAIP members will make a
reasonable effort to investigate legitimate complaints about alleged illegal content or network
abuse, and will take appropriate action.”

We trust that this is a philosophy shared by your organization.

The individuals responsible for the web site are using your service to promote and carry on their illegal
activities including an unlawful scheme to distribute, sell or modify access cards and/or other illegal DTH signal
theft devices. Accordingly, News Datacom and NDS Americas demand that you immediately take such actions as
are necessary so that the web site is no longer made available by using your service.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing we demand that the internet site be removed from your
service and that you do not support it in any way. This would mean that you

a.would not allow the website or any part of it to be stored on your server or system;
b.would not allow any of your promotional or other materials to refer to the site;
c.would not support any links, pages or data with offending meta-tags or any other arrangements that might
direct those seeking access to the site to any other location for access to the site;
d.would not allow any caching or other arrangements to allow access to the site even if it is now or later
stored, accessed or cached on another server;
e.would not give any technical assistance henceforth that would have the effect of supporting, constructing,
amending, or altering the site;
f.would file notices confirming the take-down of the website with all search engines, promotional services or
other parties to whom you may have provided information regarding the website;
g.would not assist those who support or own the site by providing technical or practical assistance in
relocating the site or redirecting traffic to any relocated site; and.
h.would not provide any further advice or assistance to the website owner or directing mind that would
assist or support the commission of the offences set out herein.



Please be aware that News Datacom and NDS Americas take seriously all threats to the integrity of their
satellite transmissions and encryption technologies. The companies intend to pursue vigorously all available legal
remedies against individuals and businesses involved in counterfeiting, cloning, modifying, selling, or offering for
sale any devices which contravene the Radiocommunication Act or interfere with my client’s business.

We appreciate that you may not have previously had knowledge of the illegal activities Hopefully this
matter can be resolved amicably and you will immediately remove the site from your system and confirm that you
have done so. Alternatively you may wish to schedule a meeting or telephone conference in the next few days to
discuss your response to this letter. Of course such a conference would be without prejudice to the respective
rights of all parties and it would be helpful if you have your legal counsel participate. Please call Ms. Sunny Ware
at my office to make the arrangements. Alternatively you may wish to respond by email to mclaw@mclaw.ca

We look forward to your cooperation in this matter

Yours truly,

Crawford, McKenzie, McLean, & Wilford K. William McKenzie

mikeotron
August 31st, 2000, 06:08 PM
Is this the same group that gave DR7 and the others such problems?
What is the position of the server host?

gunsmoke2
August 31st, 2000, 10:04 PM
No.. this is a new on.. by McPuke who represents ExpressPuke.. Wic the Pri*k and NDS..

Quite a conflict of interest..

Ever since McPuke has seen his farce misinterpretation of the RC ACT being slam by Judges.. he has gone on a tear..

Like a child who is not king of the castle anymore..

What horsesh*t he wrote.. a web site contravenes section nine of the bullsh*t RC ACT.. illegal use of a computer.. mischief..

McPuke what are you on.. booze.. drugs.. or just plain old fashion DEPRESSION..

Who is your real client here.. NDS..or ExpressPuke.. or BOTH..

NDS isn't in Canada.. so is this hurting ExpressPuke.. oh I see you are disappointed because there is no advice on hacking ExpressPuke.. thats what it is all about.. unfair competition to the Pukes

Looking forward to you losing these clients..there might be an opening for a public defender in the NWT.. and you can pee outside.. icesticles..

GS2

rbryant3
September 4th, 2000, 08:35 AM
Sounds like they have a case. A case of lawyers bluff! This is a prime example of how attorneys and government try to use disinformation and peoples ingorance of the law to gain the upper hand.This nothing more than a case of harassment.

[Edited by rbryant3 on September 4th, 2000 at 12:14 PM]

North Sat
September 4th, 2000, 04:11 PM
I wonder if Scott Wilsdon realizes Wild Willy is plagarizing his threatening letters almost word for word....

What you should do Risestar is get copies of EVERY winning decision (including Krazy Krazy) and send it to him, let him know you thought you should clarify the law for him, and just to get him really aggravated I would include a cover letter, stating "it is now considered settled law that the Radiocommunications Act does not apply to signals originating from outside of Canada." You may also want to mention that any further communication will be considered consultation, and that your hourly fee for such consultation will be $500 per hour.

gunsmoke2
September 4th, 2000, 05:16 PM
I would wait til Thursday.. assuming I hope that the BC court of appeals up hold Justice Brenner's decision..

Then you can tell McPuke that it is Law accross Canada as the BC case tooked in his famous Norsat case and overuled it in the year 2000..

Am I only only one nervous about this decision coming on Thursday..

GS2

North Sat
September 4th, 2000, 06:11 PM
I would hope the BC decision will be in our favour, but even if it isn't it is NOT the end of the road....


we must remember that the rules for CIVIL proceedings are much different than those for CRIMINAL, so it will still be arguable that a person must be found not guilty in a criminal trial, despite what the civil courts say.

The most fundamental part of this is the Interpretations Act, which says that if a statute has more than 1 reasonable interpretation, the court is BOUND to use the interpretation MOST FAVOURABLE to the accused. This benefit does not exist for CIVIL proceedings.

Before my landmark decision, it was very difficult to argue that our interpretation was 'reasonable' - no court had yet accepted it. Considering now that there are multiple decisions which endorse that interpretation, there can be no doubt that the interpretation is 'reasonable'. Therefore, even if it WASN'T the intention of parliament, so long as it is a REASONABLE interpretation, it HAS to be adopted in favour of an accused. The only hope the Crown will have is to argue that the interpretation is NOT reasonable, very difficult to look a Judge or Justice in the eye, and tell them that numerous Courts throughout the country have adopted unreasonable interpretations.

Now, as Mr. Peck attempted to do, was to say that if a person could not be convicted under 9(1)(c), then that interpretation must be extended to the civil arena, since it is activity contrary to 9(1)(c) that is the 'trigger' mechanism under which a claim pursuant to section 18 must be made. No criminal breach under 9(1)(c), no claim under S. 18.

dssnowalittle
September 4th, 2000, 06:30 PM
Eddie, a man of many talents... Now, your lawyer side is showing, haha......

jnix
September 4th, 2000, 07:04 PM
Gosh,Do hope that things work out,IF you need any Help let me know, I do have ascess to someone that be of some help to you

gunsmoke2
September 4th, 2000, 07:55 PM
Unfortunatly it was the CIVIL case that started the destruction of the Royal Farcets to SEIZE all our inventory and make some of us broke.. some closed...some plead guilty.

Now most of the CRIMINAL cases I know the Judges are WAITING for the decision from BC.. mine is..

If it was not so important they would have ruled by now... except they are waiting for guidance..

It might not be the end all.. but as far as I am concerned it sure counts for a WHOLE lot..

I still need to discuss that situation with you.. as outstanding issues are not taken care of and how will future ones be handled? this will go on and they need some reasurrance..

GS2

RiseStar
September 4th, 2000, 11:01 PM
I certainly am not going to back down becasue of a form letter that they send out, I am in fact preparing a rebuttal to their letter and will publish it here when it is complete.

gunsmoke2
September 4th, 2000, 11:29 PM
Ok.. but watchout for the mischief.. and becareful not to use your computer illegally.. :)

And be sure to mention that he is a PUKE.. Ever wonder why he hasn't posted the Cam-Am decision on his site.. what will he do if the court of appeals upholds the decision.

And remind him to pee in the proper washroom.. what a degenerate.. hope your reading this Mr McPuke :)

GS2 http://www.legal-rights.org/images/smilesmok.gif

North Sat
September 5th, 2000, 12:47 AM
...also don't forget to let him know there is a new cure for one of his other 'problems' -- it's called 'Propecia'...if you've ever seen him you'll know what I mean...one of these guys who grows the 3 remaining hairs on the top of his head about 2 feet long to try to cover the rest up....

RiseStar
September 5th, 2000, 02:03 AM
One of the eddie harrelson type of combovers? :)

To The Real King!!
September 5th, 2000, 05:13 AM
Hi Guys,

Yup I got a copy of the letter too, the same as RiseStar got. I sent them a very quick response because they obviously didn’t read the recent ruling in Krazy Krazy.

Gee, doesn’t seem to be against the law as Mac says, does it. Here is what I sent his young lady who emailed me. I included a BUNCH of rulings that explain the law to McKenzie if he can read that much. Then he can stop sending his BS letters. What a DORK!!

I guess I followed Eddie’s good advice BEFORE I even got it.



To: Jennifer Tendall <jtendall@mclaw.ca>
From: Reg Scullion <reg@vcipher.com>
Subject: Re:
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments: Krazy Krazy Decision Aug 9 2000: 330993:ExpressVu v. CanAm D. Brenner: 330993:Ereiser v. The Queen: 330993:R v. Leblanc SY4738: 330993:R. v. Fulop April 24, 1987 :330993:R v. Fulop 1990- December 10.:

<<VCIPHER.COM.doc>>
Please find attached a cease and desist letter with respect to the website
located at URL "vcipher.com"

Attachment converted: :VCIPHER.COM.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (000FB9F4)


Dear Jennifer Tindall,

Please find enclosed the recent ruling in the matter of R v. Krazy Krazy by Madame Justice Pettit Baig August 9, 2000 in the Ontario courts as well as the ruling of Mr. Justice Brenner in BELL EXPRESSVU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CanAm, Mr. Justice Klebuc in the matter of R v Ereiser et al and that of Mr. Justice Haliburton in the matter of R v.Leblanc and also in the matter of R v. David Lloyd Williams and Mr. Justice Kennedy in R v. Love. Also not to mention the Supreme court of Canada ruling which ratified R v. Fulop, quite pertinent to these matters.

The appeal in the Brenner case will be ruled on by the Appeals Court In British Columbia on September 7, 2000.

Perhaps your lawyers should READ these, especially the recent Ontario ruling as well as the Fulop ruling later ratified by the Supreme Court of Canada which requires a “lawful charge” from an authorized distributor, in my understanding.

Furthermore any information you may have for “vcipher.com” should be directed to Avantec Bahamas, Ltd., the current owner of both Vcipher Technologies and their web site “vcipher.com“.



Yours truly,

R.S.


Perhaps these lawyers should READ THE RULINGS to understand the “state of the law in Canada currently.” The LAST RULING is really the guiding light to this and that acquitted Krazy Krazy on the basis that it is NOT against the RC Act.

With this case CLEARLY supporting Mr. Justice Brenner and Mr. Kevin Filkow (of Mr. R. Pecks office)having emailed me that he has already sent the ruling I sent him electronically to the Court of Appeals, I feel quite confident about that BC case.

I suspect Mr. McKenzie is TRYING DESPERATELY to get his last licks in before the bad news puts him “OUT OF BUSINESS” with these farcical cases he has live off of.

Lets hope so.

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!
-----------------------
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!

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

[Edited by To The Real King!! on September 5th, 2000 at 04:17 AM]

RiseStar
September 8th, 2000, 02:44 PM
This is my official view of the "letter"


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

September 8, 2000
11am

As some of you may have known, last Thursday I received a letter from
the law offices of Crawford, McKenzie, McLean & Wilford. This letter was
in regards to my web site, dsschat.com in particular. You can view the
letter here.

I have received letter before usually from the US law offices of Wilsdon
and Yarmuth (Hi Scott!!) , however this was the first one from a Canadian
law firm. I guess they finally clued in that letters from US lawyers quoting
U.S. laws don't hold a lot of water in Canada.

First, let me say, that I am honored to have received such a letter from the
firm that NDS have chosen to represent their Canadian interests. (Wait a
minute, don't you also represent Bell Expressvu L.P.?)
May I call you Bill? Mr. Mackenzie Sir? I have read many recent court
transcripts involving you and your firm that I feel that I almost know you.

First of all, let me expand on a point I brought up earlier. Now, you and
your firm represent BOTH Bell Expressvu L.P. AND NDS? Now isn't Bell
Expressvu L.P. currently litigating against NDS? That would seem to be a
BIG conflict of interest wouldn't it? Perhaps you should read this exerpt
closely...

While there exists no national law society, the Canadian Bar Association,
a national society representing lawyers across the country, adopted a
Code of Professional Conduct in 1974. The Code has been adopted by the
Law Society of Manitoba and by the Law Societies of other provinces.
Chapter V, entitled "Impartiality and Conflict of Interest", commences with
the following rule:

The Law

The law in Canada and in other jurisdictions has adopted one of two basic
approaches in determining whether a disqualifying conflict of interest
exists: (1) the probability of real mischief, or (2) the possibility of real
mischief. The term "mischief" refers to the misuse of confidential
information by a lawyer against a former client. The first approach
requires proof that the lawyer was actually possessed of confidential
information and that there is a probability of its disclosure to the
detriment of the client. The second is based on the precept that justice
must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. If,
therefore, it reasonably appears that disclosure might occur, this test for
determining the presence of a disqualifying conflict of interest is satisfied


Now back to the letter, a very nice letter by the way, EXACTLY identical
to several others sent to other individuals this week. Form letters are ok,
but considering the serious nature of the allegations that you are
accusing me of, I would have appreciated a personal letter. Your letter
goes on to state the following;

The internet web site located at the URL “DSSCHAT.COM” is currently
running advertisements for counterfeit or compromised satellite access
cards, software, technical assistance and/or other illegal devices as well
as services which permit or assist persons in Canada to decode encrypted
subscription programming signals which are transmitted via satellite in
contravention of the Radiocommunication Act R.S.C. 1985 and
amendments thereto. Generally speaking the devices and/or services
which are being offered also cause or contribute to infringement of
copyright rights of our clients and others while also constituting
intentional interference with the business relations of these companies.

Now, that last time I checked, the Radiocommunication Act R.S.C. 1985
and amendments thereto deal with "Lawful" distributors only, does it not?
I do believe that I have read in numerous court documents that both the
plantiffs and defendants readily admit that NEITHER DTV, nor NDC or
NDA are considered a "Lawful" distributor. In fact, they do not currently
hold ANY Canadian distribution rights at all do they?

Your letter also goes on to state Generally speaking the devices and/or
services which are being offered also cause or contribute to infringement
of copyright rights of our clients and others while also constituting
intentional interference with the business relations of these companies.

So, you are readily admitting that your client, that is NOT a "lawful"
distributor, nor a holder of ANY Canadian distribution rights is
nonetheless conducting business in Canada??? Isn't that in itself illegal? I
mean don't you need to first receive a license from the C.R.T.C. or
something before you can begin a Digital Broadcast Undertaking? Very
interesting.

Your letter continues; We refer you to the following sections of The
Radiocommunication Act:

SECTION 9.

Prohibitions

9. (1) No person shall

(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted
network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an
authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;


Now, I believe that your firm has extensively used this section of the
Canadian Radio Communication Act in court. I believe that YOU interpret
that if there is not "lawful" distributor of any given signal or feed that the
section means that there is a TOTAL PROHIBITION from receiving it?
Hasn't your "interpretation" of the act been rejected multiple times in the
Can-Am Satellite vs. Bell Expressvu ruling, or the Krazy krazy ruling or the
more recent Can-Am appeal?

Interesting how your "interpretation" of the Act can be disproved in a
Canadian court of law and Canadian appeals court not to mention
Canadian criminal court proceedings and yet you still insist that your
interpretation is the correct one? Wasn't your firm directly involved in
the Can-Am proceedings? I believe that it was. Weren't you representing
your "other clients then, Bell Expressvu L.P.? I believe that you were.
Congradulations on your successful loss BTW.

Your letter goes on to alledge many other apparent "offences" such as
Unauthorized use of a computer, which I do believe relates to criminal
hacking or denial of service attacks, not operating a simple web site,
Possession of device to obtain computer Fraud and Mischief


Please be advised that it is not considered established law that section
9(1)(c) of the Canadian RadioCommunication Act does NOT deal or
relate in any way to the reception of foreign signals. Considering that
your firm was directly involved in both the CanAm and CanAm appeal
where the justices involved clearly stated that EXACT fact, I am
surprised that you are not aware of this as well. Perhaps your lawyers
should consider reading these transcripts and get a correct
interpretation of the law in Canada.

Please also be advised that any further letters such as these will be
considered an act of harassment and will be forwarded to our lawyers for
appropriate action.

gunsmoke2
September 8th, 2000, 05:28 PM
Conflict of interest.. I'll say!!

Your Client Bell ExpressPuke having an amesty program to allow Canadians to spare themselves of sparky the chair..

Then your Client Bell ExpressPuke repossess the alleged Illegal Access cards that belong to your other Client NDS.. and then resells them back into Canada..

So I guess you should SUE of file CRIMINAL charges against your Client Bell ExpressPuke on behalf of your Client NDS..

Oh... just a little bitty small conflict of interest.. Mr McPuke.

GS2

[Edited by gunsmoke2 on September 8th, 2000 at 04:46 PM]

North Sat
September 8th, 2000, 05:33 PM
umm let us also not forget about his lawsuit against USSB for selling HBO out of market....now that USSB is part of DTV, and with NDS so closely linked to DTV, how can he stand on both sides of the courtroom?

RiseStar
September 8th, 2000, 05:46 PM
With conflict of interest not being an issue with ole Wild Bill,

I would say he would likely sit right in between the plaintiff and defendants booths so he can try both sides :)

gunsmoke2
September 8th, 2000, 11:40 PM
And be the Judge & Jury also.. What a guy.

GS2