RCMP Seize DSS from Major TO. Dist. - previous charges dropped, Biggest Royal Farce!!

[gunsmoke2]

This one tops them all!

A major TO seller of DSS recently had all charges dropped.. end of story.. No part 2

The day he arrived at the CES show with his in laws.. part 2 of the story starts.

It seems the in laws were having an on going battle with the Government over the sale of some Herbal products.

So the Barrie Police came with a search warrant to the premises where the herbal products were stored, this happened the day the TO Dealer and his in law arrived at the CES show.

The dealer stored many DSS units at his in law's premises. As soon as the Barrie Police arrived they call the RCMP because of finding the stock of DSS units.

The DSS units were detained until the next day when the RCMP showed up with a search warrant. They seised all DSS units.

They also seised Alphastar DSS units that the dealer bought from Revenue Canada. Alphastar was a licensed Canadian DTH company that went brankrupt.

This TO dealer arrived home to find a substantial quantity of his equipement seised.

This all started because of a dispute of the sale of some herbal products between the dealer's in laws and the Government.. or did it?

Remember this dealer successfully got all his charges dropped and his equipement returned the first time.

Since when do the Barrie Police call the RCMP when they find DSS equipement? since when do the RCMP deatained equipement until a search warrant comes the next day?

Believe it or not the search warrant alleged section 327 (1) - theft of telecommunications.

Stored DSS units.. Alphastar units. - bought from Revenue Canada when this Canadian licensed DTH company went belly up.. - adds up to theft of telecommunications.

I know this TO dealer very well.. was with him at the show when this all took place..

This has to be perhaps the BIGGEST SCAM of in Justice by the Government and the RCMP on the Satellite community so far!!

We always thought they would try to get even when they had to drop the original CRAPOLA charges..

Just when you thought you have seen it all!

This is the MOST PATHEIC LOW LIFE DISPICTABLE SHAMELESS GUTLESS DISGRACEFULL ACTIONS..

Keep it going MORONS.. Part 3 to come.

[RiseStar]

GS2,

You have any docs on this? would look good on the www.canfree.org (http://www.canfree.org) site

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Everyone,

As horriffic as this improper action by the government and the RCMP is, I am thrilled that it happend to someone I also am friends with. I spoke to him about it yesterday.

This now shows just how 'out of hand" and how outrageous this corrupt government action has become. In fact it is DANGEROUS as they have gone from seizing things that they could PRETEND MIGHT be illegal to items that are clearly perfectly legal to anyone with a brain. There was not ONE SINGLE DSS card seized in this raid and the VAST majority of the product seized were Alphastar receivers that were NEVER illegal in Canada and as they are no longer used can hardly be used for "theft of telecommunications or anything" as it doesent exist as a telecommunications signal since Alphastar went BANKRUPT!! And they seized almost 4000 of those systems. Yes folks 2 TRACTOR TRAILER LOADS.

This action is SURE to get the RCMP's asses sued bigtime and THAT is what makes me happy!

It also goes a long way to showing that their is an AGENDA to their corrupt actions and may WELL lead to proof of WHAT the corruption is all about. Lord knows that many people are investigating that possibility.

Who was PAID OFF, if anyone and is this a POLITICAL favor and if so by whom and to whom. This SUPPOSEDLYBROKE RCMP, claimed to be penniless and who have no money to prosecute criminals seem to have UNLIMITED BUDGETS when it comes to seizing SATELLITE EQUIPMENT, even things that are CLEARLY and unmistakably 100% legal.

SOMEONE THERE IS VERY CORRUPT as they go VERY SLOWLY at investigating Bell ExpressVu when I have provided evidence almost two months ago but appear on a moments notice to SEIZE LEGAL PRODUCTS from a small satellite dealer/distributor. The SLOW action took well over a month to get a reply from RCMP Commissioner Murray's office when they react to the Barrie police with SEIZURE on one days notice.

Here is the letter I got from RCMP Commissioner Murrays office (I sent them a letter on Nov 15th 1999 and received this answer Jan 6 2000). Why did they NOT send the police (RCMP) to RAID BELL ExpressVu right away and discover the proof before it is destroyed? Can you answer that RCMP Commissioner Murray? We DO have telephones in Canada.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rcmpanswer1.gif

Now Commanding officer of "O" division. The Barrie police get the RCMP to get an immediate TELEWARRANT without ANY proof that the product is illegal (which it is NOT) yet will YOU RAID Bell ExpressVu for selling DSS receivers and Echostar receivers that contain ACCESS CARDS that allow the RECEPTION of TV without payment. Bell ExpressVu have sold many of those to Canadians so HURRY, MR MURRAY. A crook may well be in action here according to your website. Don't dely, Dont phone Lawyer Ian Gavaghan to ASK him if Bell ExpressVu do ILLEGAL THINGS and SELL DSS systems in Canada with Black programmed cards, HE WILL LIE about that as he has done in writing in the past.

Well the RCMP should fet their asses trimmed back a few notches for this ILLEGAL action. What a bunch of GESTAPO. I wont stop on this one until there is HELL to pay for these GESTAPO Like actions against honest Canadians. People do NOT have to put up with this type of ----, RCMP. You are acting like outrageous ASS HOLES and acting like an unlawful bunch of pillaging GANG MEMBERS. You remind me of the German GESTAPO before WW2 in your actions. BASTARDS!!! ILLEGAL BASTARDS. When the LAW act illegally, I cant think of words bad enough to describe you.

I will be going to the RCMP complaints commission over this one.

Thanks

To the REAL King!!
------------------
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif VOTE REFORM!! http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/lrbanner.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal!

[gunsmoke2]

risestar,

Have some docs but would require permission to release.. sensitive to the dealer in question.. will inquirer.

Looks like a writer from the Nationalpost is doing a story on this and other satellite cases.

Spoke to him today for quite awhile.. laid everthing under the sun to him.. he kept saying he had to go.. I kept talking...... finnaly I told him he would have to tell me shut up http://207.194.212.246/ubb/smile.gif

He will call back.. it appears he will be writing about the behaviour of the Farcers and what not.. will have to see.. he seemed sympatheic to our situation.

[North Sat]

The RCMP are not the only idiots to blame in all of this.....

The Crown attorneys and those behind the scenes are as much responsible for these fiascos.....

As some of you may or may not be aware, we have been fighting this issue since Sept. 1997 when the RMCP ILLEGALLY seized 35 systems from us SECONDS after Customs took the money for the duties and taxes and released the goods into Canada.

You may or may not also be aware that it was right here in Winnipeg, with my own case from the C-Band days, which I acted on my own behalf for trial and appeal, which started the whole favourable interpretation to the R.C. Act that the rest of the industry is relying on. This was the case that J. Klebuc relied on in dismissing the search warrants in Sask., and that J Haliburton relied on in his findings.

So we are and have been knee deep in this crap for quite some time, we do not publicize it like some others do...

In fact, it is fairly safe to say that this current case will be the one that ends up before the Supreme Court of Canada to ultimately decide the Charter issue.

We have had every indication from day 1 that they are deathly afraid of the Charter issue.

Their latest attempt confirms that. We were scheduled to resume our trial this week, and on monday when we appeared before the Judge, the Crown pulled a new rabbit out of its hat.

They suggested to the Judge that the defence should not be able to call any of it's charter evidence UNTIL the Judge makes a ruling on the guilt or innocence. The rationale was that why should we spend a bunch of time and money pursuing the Charter, when it will be irrelevant if another line of defence is successful. This sort of does make sense on first impressions, however if you fully think throught the consequences it becomes very clear why the Crown wanted to proceed in this fashion.

If the Judge were to acquit us on all the charges, the case would end, the charter evidence would not be on the record, and we would go home. Except we know full well that the government would appeal that acquittal (as they did when we were acquitted because the search and seizure was illegal). So then we would end up in a higher court, arguing the same issues, primarily which is how to interpret a particular piece of legislation. If the appeals court decided that the interpretation taken by the trial judge is incorrect, we would have to remind him that there is no other reasonable interpretation under the Charter. But guess what? We would have no evidence on it, therefore it couldn't be considered!! Pretty sneaky on behalf of the government, don't you think?

Well needless to say, this Judge wasn't about to have the wool pulled over his eyes, and he denied the request.

This is just one example of a long long list of BS that we have gone through with these people, starting with the illegal acts by the RCMP officer Cpl. Struck, when he took control over our inventory. Oh, and by the way you should also know he found himself a new job....he retired and started his own private investigation firm DDS Investigations. (David Daniel Struck) It appears his primary client is some company calling themselves NDS Americas something or other.

I could go on and on forever, but I wouldn't want to contribute to RiseStars ongoing bandwidth troubles http://207.194.212.246/ubb/smile.gif

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Northsat,

I agree 100% with you that it is important to get all the evidence before this court because one way or another it will be appealed. If you win, they will appeal and if you lose YOU will appeal.

While the appeals court will be forced to rule on the issue that won or lost the case, they can also go beyond that into the other issues presented in evidence (such as a Charter issue) themselves or they can send it back to the trial judge. I have always believed (just a personal opinion) that the higher the court, the greater our chances that 2B will be upheld for us. I think we will win it in any court but I believe the chances INCREASE, the higher the court. Higher courts have more obligation to follow the Supreme Court jurisprudence in the issue which is all on our side.

So they can rule that they agree with the trial judge (assuming you lost) BUT find that that issue infringes on your 2B rights IF THAT WAS IN EVIDENCE ONLY. So they can rule to acquit on the basis of the charter issue whether they agree with the trial judge on his ruling or not. I know YOU dont want just a technical win but want to WIN BIG on the real issues including the Charter.

Unfortunatly a trial judge usually just gets to the first thing he can decide the case on and finds it unnecessary to rule on other issues. So he is unlikely to actually RULE on the charter even if it is presented in evidence if he can acquit you on other issues. They ALWAYS prefer to rule on the law if they can and avoid charter issues if they can find another reason to rule first.

Bottom line I am extremely glad that the Judge did not buy into the crowns arguments and it has tremendous benefits to you (and us all) once this goes to appeal, which it will. That leaves all options open AND finally gets the 2B argument into being heard. Great news.

On another note can you tell me the exact ruling that you are referring to above that you believe started the positive Ereiser ruling. I have looked at the case you fought yourself and I dont see the connection.

Perhaps I am missing something I should not miss but I would ask you to please point that out to me. You have promised on you site to post other rulings for over 6 months now but you have never done so and I can understand the difficulties involved with scanning and posting as I do a lot of it myself.

You state <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So we are and have been knee deep in this crap for quite some time, we do not publicize it like some others do...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But please understand that good evidence in one case NEEDS to be published so that other defendents lawyers DO NOT make the mistake of not recognising it. We do not need any BAD jurisprudence caused by some unknowlegable lawyer fighting the WRONG way and not getting to the heart of the issues. I know of one defendent in Ontario who planned to fight it himself without a lawyer and he had NO HANDLE on what it was really about. He would have lost completely and caused much harm to the industry and to every other defendant. That is a REAL DANGER and while I arranged for him to speak to a knowledgable lawyer who had the case remanded. Pheewww!! It was a close call.

So posting information and having defendants contact a cental site like http://www.legal-rights.org and gain the knowledge to fight CORRECTLY with experienced lawyers we recommend is a very POSITIVE MOVE for the industry and greatly lessens the danger of what the Crown Attorneys dream of, an inexperienced fighter that will give them the juresprudence they dream about. I am not sure if or why you seem opposed to this.

So please point me to the ruling or rulings that you ar talking about, and the exact part of the rulings as I am missing this from my arsenal of weapons against them.

As you know I am waiting on the transcripts of Industry Canadas witness who says these receivers are perfectly legal and I will make that available just as soon as I get it. This will have a strong impact on every case that is currently before the courts. We need to assist each other and our mutual lawyers as this is a battle that will be won or lost collectivly in the end. Its either legal or illegal and that will be the same for everyone so cooperation among us is very important.

Besides they are doing this exact same thing and Crown Attorneys across Canada are sharing everything they have in every case. They have mentioned YOU several times already in MY case trying to introduce some type of "guilt" by association. They have no problem with lies, cheating and will do anything they can to win wheather thats proper or not. They have a STRONG political agenda from much higher up. They seem to operate totally devoid iof ethics and its unusual for so MANY of them to be acting this way in concert,.

Thanks

To the REAL King!!
------------------
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif VOTE REFORM!! http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/lrbanner.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal!

[gunsmoke2]

Hi Northsat,

Don't worry about the bandwidth.. its nice to see ya here contributing.

I know you active in seeing Justice so please come and share more.

Your right they have always been scared of the Charter arguement and avoid it like the Plague.. they rightfully fear losing with little to argue after that.

Every case is relevent and is very important to keep in touch about all cases going on... bad decision hurts us all. Your case if often quoted.. some good.. some so-so.

There is a little known case in your backyard ( Winnepeg ) with Wic the Pr..k sueing a dealer with a motion hearing for permanent injunction. The dealer has been selling Echo.. perhaps you are familar?

In any case he is defending himself as he has run out of funds. He has managed to delay the motion hearing a few times now.. its now set for Feb. The Judge has ordered Wic to produce some sensitive documents.. so far Nada has showed.

The Royal Farcers were hiding behind bushes just waiting to take your RCA.. What a Farce!

Behind the Farcers are bigger Farcers.. Industry Canada.. Pukes.. on the US side.. DTV.. NDS.. ONE BIG FARCE! keep in touch.

[North Sat]

Well I just wrote a nice 4 page reply, and submitted it, and my PW was wrong....

Dammit. I don't have time to go through it all again right now.....

Unless there is some way the admin. can retreive that text, I will have to redo it tonite.

Let's just say you will be interested in what I have to say.

L8r

[gunsmoke2]

Thats dam frustrating! suggest you set your PW in preferences to be stored for a year.

Perhaps it is.. sometimes it forgets.. its got a mind of itself.. http://207.194.212.246/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by gunsmoke2 (edited 01-14-2000).]

[RiseStar]

could have hit back on browser and change password

[North Sat]

Okay here is attempt #3….yes attempt #2 also is in the twilight zone….

I have gotten wise and am typing this in Word which I will cut & paste when done….

BTW risestar, I did try hitting the BACK button, and it cleared all the fields.

Anyways…..

Getting back to where we were….

TTRK wondered what case I was talking about….

I will refer you to the Klebuc ruling. As you can see from reading it, there are two lines of case law put before Klebuc. The first, which the Crown seeks to use, is that of the Open Sky case (also from Manitoba) in which Judge Chartier concluded that there was an absolute prohibition of decoding encrypted signals unless the decoding was done with the authorization of a lawful distributor. This case preceded mine. The second line is my own case, which the defence seeks to rely on. Here’s what Klebuc said:

“The applicants further submitted that absent a lawful distributor in Canada of the DirecTV signal, no breach of s. 9(l)(c) of the RCA arises, its objective being to protect lawful distributors. This argument was fully canvassed in R. v. Open Sky Inc. et al, Provincial Court of Manitoba, November 1, 1994, and in R. v. :) et al, unreported, Manitoba Queen's Bench, March 12, 1997.
In Open Sky, the accused submitted that since DirecTV Inc. was not authorized to broadcast its programming in Canada, no lawful distributor of Home Box Office ("HBO") existed. In the result, no party was injured, and no breach of s. 9(l) of the RCA would arise consequent on the device he manufactures on his proposed reception of its unauthorized signal. Chartier P.C.J. held on the evidence before him that a lawful distributor of "HBO" in Canada existed and then in obiter, stated that absent a lawful distributor, s. 9(l)(c) created an absolute prohibition against decoding encrypted subscription programming signals. The Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba upheld the conviction by Chartier P.C.J. Leave to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal of Manitoba.
In R. v. :) et al, Kennedy J. applied a narrower interpretation of ss. 9(l) and 10(l)(b) than Open Sky. At pp. 20-22 he stated:
(this is Kennedys decision)
Section 9(l) contemplates that decoding is prohibited unless under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed. The section, in my mind, clearly intends that when a lawful distributor has been approved by CRTC, to distribute a signal, decoding or encrypting these subscription programming signals is unlawful. Plainly put, to allow others to decode signals that a lawful distributor has the commercial rights to is tantamount to stealing these signals from that lawful distributor.
The legislation might have said that decoding all encrypted subscription programming signals" is unlawful unless authorized, which would have made all acts of decoding prohibited unless authorized. By relating the authorization to the authorization of a lawful distributor leaves the issue of decoding signals, for which there is no lawful distributor questionable.
Section 10(l)(b) of the Act, in my opinion, is aimed at protecting lawful distributors who are entitled, based on their commercial and contractual rights, to the signal and have the right to transmit the signals as regulated by the CRTC. The Act is there in part, to protect commercial enterprises involved in delivering television signals to the public as regulated by the CRTC.
Then at p. 22:
The Act does not refer to distinctions based upon the type of programming although the Commission approves a distributor depending upon the nature and content of its programming. It protects, in Canada the rights of a lawful distributor and prevents, the theft of signals purchased by the lawful distributor. If there were no lawful distributor of the signal in Canada, can the prohibition extend to non-resident enterprises whose signals happen to over lap into Canada? I think not. “

Then Klebuc goes on to say:

“I agree with Kennedy J. In addition, I am of the view that for a programming signal to qualify as a "subscription programming signal" under ss. 9(l) and 10(l)(b) of the RCA, it must be lawfully intended for reception by the public in Canada and the public must also be entitled to lawfully subscribe for it in Canada. Mere production of "pirate" or "grey market" programming signal is insufficient to constitute an offence under s. 10(l)(b).”

So I think you see the connection. Perhaps you were looking at the original Trial decision in my case.
Now there is another little gem I will throw out there, one that almost everyone who is entrenched in this war is forgetting about. One of the fundamental principles of our justice system is that any benefit of the doubt ALWAYS works to the accused (citizens) favour. This is echoed in many of the common things you hear, such as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ , ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, ‘benefit of the doubt’ etc. etc. An extension of this fundamental principle, I would suggest, would also include that if there are two possible interpretations to either evidence or the law, that which is more favourable to the citizen who is under threat of punishment has to be adopted. Believe it or not, there is a law that exists to instruct Judges on how to interpret the law. Its called the interpretations act. Now I don’t have it right here in front of me, but there is a section of that act (unless it has been repealed since 1995), that basically says that if a word or statute contains more than 1 REASONABLE interpretation, the Court is BOUND to accept the interpretation more favourable to the accused. The Case law I had on the matter had to do with a guy who went bankrupt and didn’t disclose some of his assets to the bankruptcy trustee. He was charged with ‘concealment of property’ under the Bankruptcy Act. The Trial Judge concluded, and it was later upheld on appeal, that the word conceals could reasonably be interpreted to be a positive act of doing something, as opposed to doing nothing (not disclosing). Since the evidence was that he merely failed to disclose the assets, but he made no attempt to secret them (ie a positive act of doing something), he was acquitted.

Now, apply this reasoning to our case at hand. The RCMP and the Department of Justice, as well as Industry Canada, ALL know full well that there are TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS to the RC Act. HOW THEN, I must ask myself, CAN THEY PROCEED TO PERSECUTE people, when they know that under our system of Justice the benefit of that doubt HAS TO BE GIVEN to the accused!

Knowing this full well, BEFORE they make their illegal seizures, and BEFORE they apply for search warrants, and BEFORE they cause GREAT ECONOMIC interference to Canadian Citizens, HOW CAN THEY REASONABLY ANTICIPATE ANY LIKELIHOOD of a conviction?

(I think Haliburton said it best when he said ‘the likelihood of a conviction was speculative at best)

Could the trampling and ignorance of Citizens most fundamental rights be the basis for some multi-million dollar lawsuits? I certainly think so.

In fact this MAY even go beyond civil damages. I refer you to the Criminal Code of Canada. Under the charge of conspiracy (section 465), there are generally 3 types of conspiracies. The first, is conspiracy to commit or cause to be committed murder. The second is conspiracy to do anything else that is an offence under the criminal code. The final one ought be causing the RCMP and Justice Department some real concern.

“Every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable (i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or (ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on c

[reg]

[To The Real King!!]

Many Thanks Norsat,

Now I will dig out the kennedy ruling and read it more carefully. I just printed out your post as I have to leave for Toronto to meet Ian A tonite. I will read it on the way and then post back on tuesday.

Thanks goodness we have a ruling in opposition to Chartier. That ruling has been used by LeGrandeur in Knibb, Dorgan in Hollohan and then by Gibson in Norsat where the later 2 cases have nothing to do with DSS. It seems to be a case of the blind leading the blind.

Seems also the Can-Am ruling by Justice Donald Brenner may also have ruled in opposition to Chartier if we can ever get to see that. I also hope it holds through the Appeal that McKenzie is sure to undertake. If so it will be the counterweight to Gibson at the appeals level. Then that silly and WRONG line of reasoning will have been dealt with once and for all.

Thanks again and back Tuesday.

Thanks

To the REAL King!!
------------------
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif VOTE REFORM!! http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/lrbanner.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal!


[This message has been edited by To The Real King!! (edited 01-16-2000).]

[North Sat]

Yes there is no question wild willie may be cooking his own goose by appealing the Can-Am decision. He will then be stuck with an unfavourable decision binding on ALL provincial court judges and queens bench justices in the province of BC.

This means no search warrants, no anton pillar orders, virtually no enforcement of any type could be done without first disclosing to the magistrate or justice the fact that there is a Court of Appeal decision contrary to the enforcement sought. And, since it would be BINDING, I cannot see how they could get around it (ie they would in effect be issuing a warrant or order knowing that no offence exists). Of course, the party seeking the action could (or most likely would) fail to inform of the decision, but it at least could be dealt with on a motion to quash shortly after any action.

I should also tell, perhaps warn, you about the other new position the Crown is seeking to advance here in Manitoba. Along with that other ridiculous idea they had about not allowing the Charter case to be called, they now have stated that they intend to argue that the offence is one of strict liability, meaning that mens rea (intent) is irrelevant, only the actus rea (doing it) needs to be proven. I think it is highly unfair of them to take this position, when we have already gone through 3/4 of the case. Its almost dirty. You start the case, and pretend that the intent of the accused is an issue. You lead your evidence in such a way as to leave no doubt that you are attempting to prove the intent. The defence, realizing that intent becomes very important, calls evidence of intent. Of course, if you are going to talk about your mens rea, then you pretty much have to admit actus rea. It would be difficult to say what you intended to do when you did a particular thing, if you are not going to admit that you did the thing. So our position all along has been real simple, Yes we imported and possessed 35 systems, and yes we sold the undercover RCMP agent a system and card, however the INTENT was only for the limited purpose of decoding signals for which no lawful distributor exists in Canada. In fact, the RCMP officer even admitted in court, that on every occasion the subject came up, he was told in no uncertain terms that he could not use the system to decode signals of Canadian distributors without payment. In fact he even signed a written agreement to that effect. And when he signed it he admitted perjuring himself in that he lied about his identity, he lied about his intended use of the equipment, and he lied about not being a member of the RCMP. So its no wonder the Crown wants to say that intent isn't an issue, because otherwise they have a losing case. And I think a losing argument, particularly when 10(1)(b) says the words 'intended' for a particular purpose. So obviously simply possessing or importing them in and of itself is not an offence unless you do it for a particular intent (contrary to 9(1)(c)). To say otherwise would mean Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has been aiding and abetting in the commission of a great many offences.

Just another bizarre twist in the tale that drags on forever....I have watched people tried and sentenced to death for murder (on CourTV of course :) ) in 3 days, and this case takes 3 years....

[gunsmoke2]

Hi North Sat,

The RC ACT is flawed to begin with... too much is left open for interpretation.

With conflicting interpretations... opposites.. there shouldn't be Royal Farce Raids.. because its so unclear.. under normal conditions it would remain untouched until a CLEAR understanding or ruling was determined..

Like a Supreme Court Decision.. except they are NOT acting normal.. quite the opposite..

They CLEARLY want to damage financially buisnessess as much as possible.. Put them out of buisness.. can only be their corrupt logical mentality.. nothing else makes sense.

They are NOT thinking about winning... but rather how can they get rid of us first.

Alot have crumbled under their agenda thats the sad part.. I am confident of winning.. its only a matter of staying afloat and affordability.. I know that and so do they.

Seizing a whole inventory over 14 months ago.. over $100,000 with no return or any co-operation is just a matter of trying to put me under. When you been to court once in 14 months and might reurn in another 4? thats twice in 18 months.

For possesion under the BULL---- RC ACT.. What does that tell ya. The law is on our side.. its a matter of getting there.. thats the problem. However by the time that happens they might be the accused. :)

Ya, McPuke is in your backyard with Wic the Pr..k trying to sue a small dealer defending himself in Winnepeg. His case has been proceeding over the phone with him, Judge and Darth Vader ( Lucifer Haave ) on the phone. Motion hearing for permanent injunction is now set for February some time.

Spoke to him many times.. him and his dad.. seem like nice folks.. will email you about them or get a message to you. He could use the help.. he is fighting.. ran out of funds.. and now defending himself. I admire him for sticking it out.. your input and support I'm sure would be most appreciated.!

Almose peed in my pants when I heard McPuke went to the ladies washroom.. think we have some similar reliable sources.. I was asked not to mention it at the time.. don't know why.. guess only this person saw McPuke relive himself in the ladies douce ma thing.. Hehe!

Royce has a life dicdated by others.. one so dear to yourself.. frosty the snowman.. with an bozo like that.. what can you expect.

We? TTRK.. GS2 should communicate more.. especially when you mention charter case and ordinary citizens.. its there.. how many.. don't what to duplicate though.. enough said on that.

Nothing they do is fair.. its all lowlife shameless dirty crap.. intent.. simple I am in the buisness of selling US DSS and providing programming services.. thats why I possessed DSS equipement.. seems rather logical. My customers have intent on buying them also.

The expect from Industry Canada Moron outfit has testified that possession is legal twice now.. with the BC ruling that legally allows Can-Am to sell grey US DSS.. It sounds like the crown is crap shooting in your case..

Its all crapola as Parliment's INTENT of the BULL---- RC ACT was NOT to disallow receiving of US or foreign signals.. but rather disallow receiving of Canadian signals without a lawfull payment to the Canadian provider..

You would have to pay me to watch Pukeview as it makes very sick.. :(

[This message has been edited by gunsmoke2 (edited 01-17-2000).]

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Northsat,

The crowns intent to make it a strict liability offence is nonsence especially with what the RC Act says. While its not part of the CC it does have a possible prison trerm associated so "mens rea" must be proven. The "actus reas" can be admitted becaus the intent MUST be shown. I certainly hope the judge didnt buy that one because that alone is grounds for appeal should you lose.


Luckily, they cannot make the law up as they go. While an incorrect interpretation of the RC Act was made by Chartier and followed by several others including Gibson in Norsat, this STILL does not make the RCMP misinterpretation of this correct. Apart from the clear cut requirement for a "lawful Distributor" defined in the act (and ignored by Judge Gibson) as <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"lawful distributor", in relation to an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed, means a person who has the lawful right in Canada to transmit it and authorize its decoding;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> there is the ADDITIONAL requirement that the programming be made available to Canadians (read available for purchase).

Natually this CANNOT include either of Canada's duopoly Broadcasters (they cannot sell DirecTV's signal NOR can they make it available nor TRANSMIT it) but the real clincher is the REQUIREMENT (as an exception at 10 - 2.3) which requires that a lawful distributor MAKE the signal available to Canadians failing which they cannot be convicted under the RC Act. Here is what that says <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Exception(2.3) No person who decodes an encrypted subscription programming signal in contravention of paragraph 9(1)(c) shall be convicted of an offence under that paragraph if the lawful distributor had the lawful right to make the signal available, on payment of a subscription fee or other charge, to persons in the area where the signal was decoded but had not made the signal readily available to those persons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now for SURE parliament would NOT give a right (of conviction) to an unauthorized American Company that it does NOT give to a Canadian authorized distributor (by prohibiting conviction of Canadians) when they both did the EXACT SAME thing (did NOT make the programming available as above). As the programming was not made available for sale by ExpressVu or StarChoice or by DTV then this EXCEPTION applies and NO Canadian can be convicted.

THIS PROVES that Chartier and Gibson were WRONG to any Judge who listens but the arguement MUST be made which neither Open Sky not Norsat did.

That reverse understanding CLEARLY shows that the meaning of "Lawful Distributor" is NOT as Judge Gibson says and that NO ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION exists.

Furthermore parliament cannot ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT a 2B right because the Charter does not allow that. They must do the LEAST intrusive thing in order for the 2B right to be saved by 1 of the charter. The Section ONE test is the ONLY test that is valid as 2B absolutly covers all forms of expression other than violent ones and INCLUDES the worst type of expression (because THAT is what needs protection the most). Prohibition is NOT open to parliament to defeat a 2B right as the intrusiveness is MOST important. If they have a purpose in doing something or prohibiting it then they MUST do the least intrusive thing to remedy and serve the purpose for 2b to be saved by 1. For instance if their purpose (legitamate purpose) is to prohibit a certain type of porno (in the public interest) for example then they can PROHIBIT that form of expression which is NOT ABSOLUTE but limited to prohibiting THAT type of porno but not ALL American signals.

In any case an intelligent judge who hears a proper arguement (including the 10 - 2.3 above) CANNOT conclude that Chartier was correct in his ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION as that cannot be saved by 1. Even Zundle, Keegstra and RJR tobacco were granted 2B rights that were NOT saved by 1 even though they were MUCH worse than the viewing of International Signals.

Northsat, I understand you have 8 days in May and that you may well finish then. I wish you the best of luck on that and it sounds like you have unbeatable arguement to come.

Break a leg ;)

P.S. I almost pissed my pants too upon hearing the ladies bathroom story. Can't you just picture it. Wild Willie was apopleptic and beside himself with anger at loosing as I hear it. He had better get used to it because it wont be the last.

Thanks,

To the REAL King!!
------------------
&lt;html&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE="+2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif VOTE REFORM!! http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/lrbanner.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/font&gt;

[This message has been edited by To The Real King!! (edited 01-17-2000).]

[North Sat]

How about this one....

With respect to the 'strict liability' issue....it gets real interesting when you pick it all apart....

When an offence is deemed to be a 'strict liability' offence, the defence of 'due diligence' is automatic, therefore there is no need for parliament to enact a 'due diligence' defence in the statute for those types of offences.

In fact, they are discouraged from doing so:

(some excerpts from the Justice Depts. 'Guide to the Making of Federal Acts')

"The law distinguishes between true crimes, where the required mental element of the offence is knowledge or intention, and strict liability offences, where the offence has no mental element as such, although there is a defence of due diligence, discussed below. (A third class of offences, known as absolute liability offences, where there is no defence of due diligence, is not relevant here.)

If the Act is silent, the courts may have to determine whether an offence is a true crime or a strict liability offence. It is sometimes preferable for an Act to answer this question, especially where the same Act contains both true crimes and strict liability offences.

For example, an offence that is not a "true crime" is presumed by the courts to be a "strict liability offence" for which a defence of due diligence is available. Adding such a defence for strict liability offences can lead to confusion and sometimes needless litigation because of apparent differences among Acts that address similar issues. "

So, let us assume for a moment that the Crown position 10(1)(B) is strict liability is correct. We have to also assume that since due diligence is enacted in section 10(2.5) as a defence to 9(1)(c), that 9(1)(c) is NOT a strict liablity offence, for there would have been no need to enact the due diligence defence. So, this really makes alot of sense. You are only guilty of DECODING without authorization of the lawful distributor (whatever the hell it actually means) if you intended to, however, you are still guilty of POSSESSING and/or OPERATING the equipment under 10(1)(b). So you are acquitted of doing the DECODING (which would carry a lesser penalty), but convicted of POSSESSING/OPERATING the equipment?

Does this make any sense? Or, could the Crown simply be mistaken...

I think we already know the answer...

[gunsmoke2]

The only thing that makes sense is that they are grasping at straws.

Twist and turn... where do they go next..

They are slowly being dismantled as we get to court.. they really weren't depending or preparing for this.

Their agenda was to screw us up first and then wing it... well now with strong attorneys.. some very determined ;) and judges who can make decision on the merits..

I see that they are getting boxed in..

If we remain and hang tough.. I wouldn't have said this a year ago.. I think we are starting to have them on the run..

Grasping.