American's against Television Theft by Satellite companies

                         A Grass Roots organization to get congress and the Justice system to protect the public

                          from Satellite companies from using Digital rights to hold the consumer hostage.

.

Some people exercised there right to protect the programming they had purchased through the purchase of an access card. People knew in advance directv had planned to take away that programming. Below is a case where directv actually sued one of the victims of the above theft and fraud asserting the customer had no right too buy an access card to stop Directv's theft. The people have the right under our US Constitution to take reasonable measures to protect from the crime of theft. Directv doesn't feel the same and sued those for exercising that constitutional right. If you click the link below, you might get a disgusting chuckle. The individual being sued in the case below, me, never knew how to program a smart card. It stands to reason, "why would I buy a preprogrammed smart card to stop a theft if I knew how to do it myself."  Keeping that in mind reading the case below, it becomes obvious the attorney lied to the court and the Federal Judge assigned the case.

Click here to read how the victim of the 1997 theft was sued in 2003:  This is the lawsuit where Directv sued the victim of the above class action stating the victim had no right to buy an access card which was used to stop the above Directv theft

 
The fundemental arguements in this matter are "the people's right to defeat an electronic counter measure to protect their product or service"
VS. 
upholding the "right of the copyright owner to impose an electronic measure where such measure is used to commit theft or fraud to another." 
The two above cases are conflicted and a court should decide which issue stands.

Now most would agree that once caught at doing some thing illegal, Directv would really be crossing the line by suing the victim of what Attorney General's said was Theft and Bait and Switch. But Directv simply turned it around to make it appear the victim was the perpetrator. Also in the second case Directv never said the issue was settled with 31 state attorney general's in an earlier case.  What is important is that  the victims of Directv's 1997 theft and fraud  was an easy target because  the victim never had enough litigation money  to get there day in court.  As a  consiquence, while Directv paid 11 million for the theft and fraud, suing  the victim of that fraud for trying to protect from the fraud, permitted Directv to profit from that 1997 fraud.

Is it wrong to sue the victim of a crime for trying to stop the crime?   Is it wrong to lie to a Federal Court?    Is it wrong to sue a member of a class action after the class action ended and it was agreed the issues are resolved?   Is it wrong to first enter into a contract  to settle a class action then enter into a second contract which counters the Attorney General's class action?    When did corporations take our right to protect ourselves from theft and fraud?  Why does the Justice Department permit corporations to make contracts with the public that take away our constitutional rights?    Is it right, after directv got caught, paid the 11 million fine, that they then sue the victim and profit from that victim.

Click Here for Information




See the News article about this here

Black's Law Dictionary self defense is defined as "that degree of force which is not excessive and is appropriate in protecting oneself or "one's property." When such force is used, a person is justified and is not criminally liable, nor liable in a tort." Yet torts continue to be filed as if the victim never had a right.

This is the theft statute in most states: (1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: (a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. (b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.