-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
my g/f has a legal problem
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
paulandreas
Banned
why doesnt she play dumb and negotiate without a lawyer, then if she cant agree get one. for one if they dont inform her of the 3500 judgement she cant be liable for interest, what if they waited 10 years more before contacting her? second how can something that happened over a few years and is only worth $400 a year add up to 3500?
Yes actually we did care, because we had to sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that we served the correct person, and that we followed all the steps necessary for a valid delivery.
In New York this is what has to be filled out.
So, why not just get a copy and see which method was used? There are numerous ways to serve someone, and you need to get a copy. If the landlady did declare she was the individual then there is a problem. There is a physical description form at the bottom. When you get a copy pay attention to that. Secondly, if the landlady was simoly the suitable age person, then your GF still would have gotten a mailed copy. What happened there? She doesn't read her mail? Oh, she got the papers. You know how many people have said they didn't get the papers after a default judgement? Almost every person. You know how many actually didn't get served? Very very very few.
do you really belive that ? Where does the cable company get their rates from ? That industry should be regulated imho. How much profit should they make off of us anyway ? I can't get any reception without cable, rabbit ears are useless. How would someone stealing cable service jack up the prices for everyone else ? The prices are jacked up b/c they want more profits.
The judgement was handed down in 2000, she got the box in 1999. I dunno how they arrived at the 3500 dollar number or how is mushroomed to $7000 either. They probably charged her for all the premium services for a few years, assuming that she was using the box for the whole time.
Statue of limitations 5 Years.
Depending on the cable box, she could access the highest paid services that the cable co provides.
Where did you get a $35/month rate.
Collection agencies will nto release you once they see actual cash being obtained from a judgement.
They are in the driver seat at that point.
Thanks for the link. Sure she reads her mail if she gets it. She has moved twice since living at the location where papers are served. My g/f was really not served papers. Do you work for a company that serves court papers ? Are you trying to tell me that they go out of their way to make sure they are doing a good and correct job ?
HAHAHA who cares if the rates are higher than you want to pay? If that's true then you don't USE their service. Getting a box and then stealing the service is deserving of punishment. I can't afford a Ferrari, and I don't feel it costs that much, but that doesn't mean I'm free to go steal one. That's your opinion that they want more profits, but many of the companies are in debt(Charter is around 18 billion in debt). Regardless, if they want profits that is their "right" as we live in a capitalistic society. It is also their right to sue your girlfriend when she steals from them. That's what she did, and any sugarcoating of it is stupendous. I don't believe she didn't get a subpoena because I know what is involved with them. Believe me, when someone did cry about it I was on the hotseat until everything was reviewed. We DID care about how we served them, because it was our ass(legally) if it wasn't done properly. Plus this was an internship, so I really didn't need any problem that would prevent me from using it on my resume.
I have seen arguments from 3-5 years for the SOL on a theft of service case like this. The fun thing is, the plaintiff gets to decide (or likes to think they do anyway) when the clock starts. Is it from when she bought the box? When the place she purchased from was raided? When they discovered her name?
They could try and argue that it took them 2 years to sift through the data from the raid to discover her name. If the raid happened 3 years after she bought it, that would take you to 10 years (assuming your 5 year SOL.) And trust me, they would sue you as if you were using it for all 10 years.
She should try and get the judgement overturned, then put the burden of proving theft on the cable company. Maybe she didn't want to rent a box anymore, and got a good deal from a place that "happened" to sell boxes that some people used to steal service. You never know, it COULD happen. 🙂
No, I worked for a law firm, and I do know that we did a good and correct job. First of all must of us use the job as a stepping stone to a legal career or as something decent to have on our resume. Secondly, most of the hard cases are handled by the Sheriff's department here when we can't find someone or they are hiding from us. You do realize we had to fill out an affidavit don't you? That means if you proved we didn't do it as we said then we could be arrested or sued. I know no one I worked with took that chance. It didn't matter who we served either. Whether we were serving major businesses that had corporate counsel, or whether we had a rare case that we dipped into the projects. My ass was on the line, so I did it correctly. She could have served the landlord, because the landlord would count has a suitable age person. Within a month another copy would have been mailed to your GF's prior address. I don't care if she moved or not. Did she not do a COA form from the post office? If she didn't, that is HER FAULT.
Have you read the New York statutes? They are pretty clear. The simple intent to avoid payment(owning a descrambler and using it) makes a case.
NY CLS Penal § 165.15 (2004)
4. With intent to avoid payment by himself or another person of the lawful charge for any telecommunications service, including, without limitation, cable television service, or any gas, steam, sewer, water, electrical, telegraph or telephone service which is provided for a charge or compensation, he obtains or attempts to obtain such service for himself or another person or avoids or attempts to avoid payment therefor by himself or another person by means of (a) tampering or making connection with the equipment of the supplier, whether by mechanical, electrical, acoustical or other means, or (b) offering for sale or otherwise making available, to anyone other than the provider of a telecommunications service for such service provider's own use in the provision of its service, any telecommunications decoder or descrambler, a principal function of which defeats a mechanism of electronic signal encryption, jamming or individually addressed switching imposed by the provider of any such telecommunications service to restrict the delivery of such service, or (c) any misrepresentation of fact which he knows to be false, or (d) any other artifice, trick, deception, code or device. For the purposes of this subdivision the telecommunications decoder or descrambler described in paragraph (b) above or the device described in paragraph (d) above shall not include any non-decoding and non-descrambling channel frequency converter or any television receiver type-accepted by the federal communications commission. In any prosecution under this subdivision, proof that telecommunications equipment, including, without limitation, any cable television converter, descrambler, or related equipment, has been tampered with or otherwise intentionally prevented from performing its functions of control of service delivery without the consent of the supplier of the service, or that telecommunications equipment, including, without limitation, any cable television converter, descrambler, receiver, or related equipment, has been connected to the equipment of the supplier of the service without the consent of the supplier of the service, shall be presumptive evidence that the resident to whom the service which is at the time being furnished by or through such equipment has, with intent to avoid payment by himself or another person for a prospective or already rendered service, created or caused to be created with reference to such equipment, the condition so existing. A person who tampers with such a device or equipment without the consent of the supplier of the service is presumed to do so with intent to avoid, or to enable another to avoid, payment for the service involved. In any prosecution under this subdivision, proof that any telecommunications decoder or descrambler, a principal function of which defeats a mechanism of electronic signal encryption, jamming or individually addressed switching imposed by the provider of any such telecommunications service to restrict the delivery of such service, has been offered for sale or otherwise made available by anyone other than the supplier of such service shall be presumptive evidence that the person offering such equipment for sale or otherwise making it available has, with intent to avoid payment by himself or another person of the lawful charge for such service, obtained or attempted to obtain such service for himself or another person or avoided or attempted to avoid payment therefor by himself or another person; or
5. With intent to avoid payment by himself or another person of the lawful charge for any telephone service which is provided for a charge or compensation he (a) sells, offers for sale or otherwise makes available, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device; or (b) uses, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device; or (c) knowingly obtains any telecommunications service with fraudulent intent by use of an unauthorized, false, or fictitious name, identification, telephone number, or access device. For purposes of this subdivision access device means any telephone calling card number, credit card number, account number, mobile identification number, electronic serial number or personal identification number that can be used to obtain telephone service.
I am sorry to be the one that shatters your grand illusions, but she was not served properly. The company that tried to serve her should be sued and the person who fudged the paperwork arrested as well. The onus should be on the lawfirm serving the papers to make sure that the papers are served correctly. Obviously there is no mechanism in place to assure this happens. The system is not without fault. You paint a picture of some perfect method of serving papers that in reality doesn't exist. I dunno if she filed a COA form at the post office. They should have tracked her down anyway and gotten the service done right.
The FCC, not the FTC. "...above shall not include any non-decoding and non-descrambling channel frequency converter or any television receiver type-accepted by the federal communications commission."
Trust me, the law as it reads handles pretty much any retort you can think of. A technicality is of zero help to her, because this law goes by intent. She had intent to steal their service, and they obviously have proof. She's going to have to get the judgement vacated, go to trial, and then actually win. It will cost her more than she currently owes more than likely. She's LUCKY they only went after her in a civil matter.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
