And in the news !!!!!!

[homer2000]

Excuse my ignorance if this is already posted in another area of this fourm:

http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoNews/ts.ts-04-25-0004.html

Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Viewers win big in court
Ruling allows satellite TV choice

By JASON BOTCHFORD, TORONTO SUN
Satellite TV skies are clearing up for more than a million Canadians who have been hiding from the RCMP in the industry's "grey market."

Lawyers say a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision means television viewers and sellers of satellite services not sanctioned by Canadian regulators will no longer find themselves subject to arrest, fines or search warrants.

The ruling last week quashed an RCMP search-and-seizure warrant obtained for Lindsay satellite dealer Tech Electronics. The court concluded there were no criminal offences occurring at the business that sold grey-market systems.

The so-called grey-market dishes feed subscribers signals directly from the United States and other international countries. In turn, consumers keep a U.S. address and pay in American dollars.

Before the decision, Bell's ExpressVu and Shaw's StarChoice were considered the only services approved in Ontario to deliver digital satellite services.

"It's a David-beating-Goliath story, where a group of independent people have gone up against a powerful and sophisticated system and they have prevailed," Tech Electronic lawyer Ian Angus said. "This is cause for jubilation."

Toronto satellite dealer Ted Edmonds sold systems for 22 years before a Bell ExpressVu $15-million US lawsuit was launched against him in 1999.

'DYING ON VINE'

The company claimed he sold "illegal" grey-market systems through his retail outlet and won an injunction. Since then, Edmonds said he has laid off 23 people and closed two stores, losing an estimated $1 million a year in sales.

"I've been starving. They left me dying on the vine," Edmonds said. "The Lindsay decision is excellent news and it should mean this injunction will be overturned."

But Bell lawyer Bill McKenzie warns this is just one more decision on the way to Canada's Supreme Court.

Later this year, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a B.C. Court of Appeal decision that stated Canadians have the right to choice when it comes to satellite service.

[r0f]

I've had the unique opportunity to meet Bill McKenzie. Let me tell you.. What an -------. I'm sure Risestar will second that.

Bill takes his job very personally, and if he loses he gets all worked up. I recall someone telling me about Billy losing on another occasion, and he was so pissed off, he walked into the woman's washroom (by mistake) at the law courts building.

Shaun Willingham
aka r0f

[RiseStar]

Yea, I think its fair to call him an ------- (You fill in the blanks) :)

You can't fault the guy for trying though, I guess you can chalk it up to blind stupidity.

[gunsmoke2]

Woman's can in BC :)

GS2

[simple]

I was listen to 680 Talk Radio AM. they had a 15 minute call in show do to the above desicion interesting to hear so many.....


Simple.

[gunsmoke2]

Ya.. I have met Billy the loser a few times :)

GS2

[m_jonis]

Pardon my lack of knowledge on this, BUT . . .

If the airwaves can now be legally broadcast into Canada, then wouldn't that also then give DirecTV the right to prosecute satellite theft in Canada, since the airwave is now deemed to be legal, thus it has some value?

[Jeet]

Section 9.1(c) makes it an offence to decode an signal without first receiving permission from authorized distributor of that signal.

Directv is still not authorized to broadcast the signal into Canada. This is a different point from whether we can watch this signal.

The courts on several occasions have said that we can watch the signal whether we pay for it or not.

Directv though can not sell their service in Canada without first having permission from the CRTC. That permission they will never be able to get due to the stringent Canadian content requirements that they would have to meet.

[Andrew8468]

I'm just curious if Tech Electronics stayed open after the raid or is open now? I'm not too far from Lindsay and it might be interesting to just pop in and say hello. I'm sure it isn't difficult to find their location.

Originally posted by Jeet
Section 9.1(c) makes it an offence to decode an signal without first receiving permission from authorized distributor of that signal.

Directv is still not authorized to broadcast the signal into Canada. This is a different point from whether we can watch this signal.

The courts on several occasions have said that we can watch the signal whether we pay for it or not.

Directv though can not sell their service in Canada without first having permission from the CRTC. That permission they will never be able to get due to the stringent Canadian content requirements that they would have to meet.

Everything you've stated is true. For now. I doubt that DirecTV or Dish Network will ever be a legal source of programming in the Great White North. And, I happen to believe both services hold no illusions on that prospect. Nor is the issue of signal theft, per se, in Canuckland an overiding consideration. It might be philosophically irritating to the U.S. services, but it costs them nothing directly in lost revenue. So, why the hubbub? Peripherally, their irritation progresses to anger at the flow of conditional access module code modification devices crossing from Canada to the U.S. And, it DOES cost the Canadian domestic DBS providers PLENTY in lost revenue. Section 9.1(c), specifically, its interpretation, is central to the Crown's position in the upcoming Canadian Supreme Court battle "royale". To that end, Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice will be represented since it's in their interest to be. It is also salient that the two Canadian domestic providers receive Federal subsidies to promote a Canuck DBS industry. Even if the Canadian Supreme Court decides in favor of a continued laisez faire interpretation of Section 9.1(c) regarding unsubscribed reception and decryption of U.S. DBS signals, it's doubtful the matter will actually end there. Since Federal general funds are involved in promoting a domestic Canadian DBS industry, with at least the illusion of competition, (When two businesses both receive federal qualifying funds, how much competition can there really be?) it doesn't take rocket science to conclude that Parliament will be forced to revisit Section 9.1(c) at some point. Hint: there are at least two Canadian domestic sources who would lobby for less ambiguity in Section 9.1(c). And, those sources might even be on the receiving end of money from certain "foreign" entities who would benefit from greater difficulty in "foreign" viewers procuring certain devices from Canada allowing the illegal reception and decryption of subscription DBS programming in that "foreign" country. Since stricter wording in Section 9.1(c) could be used to justify wholesale raiding and prosecution of the Canadian "industry" producing and selling the programming devices, well... you should be able to fill in the rest. I'm not a betting man, nor would I presume to hazard a guess at the ultimate outcome. But, it will be an interesting fight since two countries' parallel services and governments will be quietly allied symbiotically in promoting their individual agendas.

[gunsmoke2]

Why should either DTV or Echo hold no illusions or care.. they do just fine on Grey market anyway.

Why are you worried about the LARGEST Canadian Corporation.. Bell Canada.. why do they need federal funding.. who ask them to start a OBVIOUS FAILURE along with Starsh*t.. like Canada can really support two DSB services.. what a crock of ---- that is..

I have heard about changing the wording in the law for over two years now.. so why don't they just do it and make Canada even more like a country that censors one's right to choose Satellite TV broadcast of their choice.. sure change it and openly violate the Canadian Charter of rights.. sure change it to protect the financial interests of Bell Canada and make our country more like Cuba.. sure change it and violate the agreement that Canada signed at the United Nations.. just wait until the Supreme Court decides and make it EVEN MORE OBVIOUS...

They will lobby more.. they are in bed with the Government..just look at the track record of Donations by Ma Bell.. it couldn't be more OBVIOUS.

Sure the US is looking to it..a win means an open door for wide open Grey market business for them.. that's just fine by me

GS2

[To The Real King!!]

Hi GS2,

Boy is this Seymour TEEVEE ever out to lunch. If the Canadian Government EVER changed the RC ACT to prohibit Canadians from Viewing International encrypted signals, that law would be STRUCK under the 2B provisions of freedom of expression under our Charter. And when it comes to 2B, ONLY Violence (nothing else) is sufficient to save that by section one of the Charter. There is HARDLY violence in watching TV.

No there is ONLY one way for them to make viewing the International signals illegal without paying and that is to allow the American's IN and to authorize them to sell here. THAT would make decoding their signal illegal without proper payment.

But if you think that the old boys commercial PROTECTIONIST club of our richest communications companies like Bell ExpressVu, who have always thrived in a protectionist Canada would allow that, you are CRAZY. They will lobby some of the finest politicians money can buy, here in Canada AGAINST THAT . They will do ANYTHING NOT to face competition, something they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about and have NEVER faced. Their friends in Government will NEVER allow that to happen.

If Canadians, as a FREE PEOPLE in a DEMOCRACY could BUY any TV service they want THEN you are entitled to prohibit them from receiving those signals without payment. The PROBLEM is the CRTC PROTECTIONISM in NOT authorizing the Americans to sell here thus DEPRIVING the Canadian population from BUYING and receiving this important expressive content.

YOU CANNOT DO THAT!!! Hence all these COURT RULINGS. And when you try to its obvious that you put Judges to the job of understanding that the law does NOT forbid that decoding, whether you pay for it or not. If they are NOT "LAWFUL DISTRIBUTORS" as called for under the RC Act AND the C.C.. Then decoding THAT signal is perfectly LEGAL and will remain so.

And the GUTLESS WONDERS we call politicians as well as the two gutless broadcasters will make SURE that it will stay that way as the lesser of the 2 EVILS from their point of view is free broadcasting of International signals over "competition" which scares the sh*t out of there gutless anti-competitivet and protectionist minds. They have always HIDDEN behind that skirt and they are NOT going to start facing a free market now. They could NEVER survive that with the CRAP they show.

So by PUSHING this thing in the courts they have placed themselves between a ROCK and a HARD PLACE and they WONT be able to use scumbag lawyers to help them out by their RICH MONOPOLY coffers anymore. They may possibly have BOUGHT the POLICE and the GOVERNMENT but our JUDGES are above that. You CANNOT LOBBY THEM!!!

Canada has FINALLY come to its senses with Canada's excellent jurists leading the way. Yes a FEW are out to lunch but bye and large they are truly excellent at determining RIGHT over wrong and what the law SAYS and what parliament INTENDED it to say and mean.

So now even the GUTLESS Pepper sprayers will have to go out and arrest REAL CRIMINALS now and not waste their time going after Satellite dealers. And they ALSO had to take their BULLSH*IT page DOWN from its LYING roost at

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/html/satellite-e.htm

and FINALLY they see the LIGHT and the ERROR of their WAYS. But wait till Canadians see just HOW MUCH it will have cost the PUBLIC when the lawsuits start flying. My LAWYER advised them of this likleyhood 2 years ago when he advised the government, Industry Canada and the RCMP in this LETTER on June 1 , 1999 :)


http://www.legal-rights.org/letters/ian_angus_letter.html

and they will NOW live to REGRET having ignored it. It was the ONLY LOGICAL suggestion made and the courts will recognize that when the lawsuits FLY!!!


Thank GOD for an independent Judiciary who IGNORED the PAYOLA RIDDEN, SCANDAL TAINTED LIBERAL Governments WRONGFUL position all these years.

If they were going to CHANGE the law, they would have done that FIRST (they sit every day) and then PROSECUTED people who DID NOT STOP. They WONT change it because they CANNOT do it under our CHARTER. They SURE would if they could. The SUPREME Court issue in BEV v Canam will have intervenors who will argue the 2B section and ask the court to consider that too so that these wrongful prosecutions and malicious actions by the police will STOP. This needs to be settled ONCE AND FOR ALL and the Supreme Court recognizes that.

The Constitution Act section 52 says that the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is the SUPREME LAW in Canada and any act that offends the charter is NULL AND VOID insomuch as it does so.

And it will STAY that way. Remember the HIGHER a court this gets too, (the Supreme Court is the HIGHEST) the MORE impact the Charter has as well as all the nuances of law such as (1) a NARROW interpretation, (2) Giving the balance of equity to the DEFENDANT in Criminal or quasi criminal matters when the law is ambiguous and (3) adopting the interpretation of any law, when 2 equally persuasive arguments can be made, to THAT INTERPRETATION that is MORE in harmony with the Charter.

The HIGHER the court, the MORE the case is judged on PRINCIPLES and the LESS on the actual case. In view of the Supreme Courts last 100 rulings alone, they could NEVER consider NOT adopting OUR point of view or they have to THROW OUT all or most of their OWN previous rulings. They will HARDLY destroy all that they have collectively said in the past to adopt an interpretation that would destroy all that they have said in the past and the BASIS for Canadian law. NOT quite hardly. That wont happen. Consistency has LONG been their hallmark and it will be CONSISTENCY that will cause all of McKenzie's arguments to be rejected. They wont succumb to his BS. Then he can go and piss in the ladies washroom again, in his CONFUSION.

To see the importance of CONSISTENCY here is what Benjamin Cardozo said of this in one of his fameous treatsies.

Just so folks KNOW Benjamin Cardozo was on of the preeminent jurists of the 20th century and is OFTEN quoted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Benjamin Cardozo in his treatise, The Nature of the Judicial Process stated:

It will not do to decide the same question one way between one set of litigants and the opposite way between another. "If a group of cases involves the same point, the parties expect the same decision. It would be a gross injustice to decide alternate cases on opposite principles. If a case was decided against me yesterday when I was a defendant, I shall look for the same judgment today if I am plaintiff. To decide differently would raise a feeling of resentment and wrong in my breast; it would be an infringement, material and moral, of my rights.

Adherence to precedent must then be the rule rather than the exception if litigants are to have faith in the even-handed administration of justice in the courts.

He was one of the leading members of the Supreme Court of the United States and was considered second only to the legendary Oliver Wendell Holmes who he was appointed to replace.

And going by what he says it becomes eminently clear that the judge in GS2's case did not consider this asp[ect. While Judge Provost may feel he is not bound by the law by other decisions in other provinces, what about Morals and ethics and what about JUSTICE or RIGHTS. The RC Act is a Federal Law and thus he is for the least morally bound and obliged to offer justice rather than resentment and WRONG.

GS2's ruling should be REVERSED if there is ANY JUSTICE in Canada!!


http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck,

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

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/bllrbanner.gif

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT BATTLE AS I DID (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<---CLICK here

http://www.dsschat.com/index2.html

http://www.legal-rights.org



[Edited by To The Real King!! on May 7th, 2001 at 09:38 PM]