: Who is Legal Rights Organization
2001-12-28, 09:36 PM
I'm always kind of curious about the
They obviously have a bone to pick with ExpressVu and the government and I agree with what there saying but tehy say We are the Satellite Community in Canada and I'm always suspicious of people who call themselves freedom fighters and then don't tell me who they are.
2002-01-04, 10:49 AM
They are a bunch of BC dealer/hackers who all voted for the Liberal party last election. Suckers all of them - sorta like a bunch of mini Jean Monty wannabes
2002-01-06, 08:14 AM
On 2001-12-28 21:36, troublemaker wrote:
I'm always suspicious of people who call themselves freedom fighters and then don't tell me who they are.
I'm sure they'll be along shortly to introduce themselves.
Gunsmoke2 - GS2
2002-01-06, 07:44 PM
Legal Rights took up the fight for the Right to chose TV broadcast of your choice a long time ago.
Thank God that someone did come up to the plate.
Legal Rights has provided a wealth of information that lawyers even refer to. The site is totally free and there are expenses being paid without any burden to anyone.
I personally can vouch for the site and hope the author will show up but is dealing with serious health issues.
I do not run legal Rights site but I am personally involved with the drive for donations.. all sorts of Decisions.. Direct communications with lawyers defending our Rights.
All Donations are accountable for and everyone who donated who wished for a receipt was provided with one. My company accepted credit card donations in Canadian and US currency. This involved my accountant to come up with procedures to ensure everything was done properly an expense I paid for. All Credit Card Donations were forwared to Allan Gold the main lawyer at the SC.
Paypal was set up by another organized group representing Canadian Rights that being Caffii. I will post a link to their site. Caffii was an intervener on behalf of the respondents ( Can-Am ) at the SC. They present written and oral arguements.
Other funds were sent it directly to either Ian Angus or Allan Gold in "trust" both lawyers who worked on the SCC.
Legal Rights took up the challenge when no one else did. We were there for Can-Am from the intial lawsuit to the BC Court of Appeals to the SC. I remember as if it was yesterday receiving an SOS from Can-Am when they were attacked by ExpressVu with a lawsuit.. an Atton Piler order.. a Gag order.
They did not have a lawyer but because of legal Rights they had someone to call for immediate help. I personally arranged a meeting with Richard Peck a well respected lawyer in BC the next day with Richard Rex the owner of Can-Am. They had so little time to prepare for their permanent injunction motion by ExpressVu to put Can-Am out of buisness.
What a miracle was pulled off. We received funding from some very Generous people and with great representation and assisstance from Eastern lawyers Can - Am WON. I call this a miracle because the odds are so stack. With the god awful Atton Piller motion granted to ExpressVu that allows them to come and seize just about anything for days and with Can-Am having a Gag order with no lawyer how could this be pulled off ?
They are in Court approx two weeks after the Lawsuit to argue against the permanent injunction requested by ExpressVu based on violating section nine of the Radio Communication Act.
If it wasn't for organizations like legal Rights we would not be in the position we are in now - a chance to WIN it all at the SC.
I could go on forever but will answer any questions or concerns.
I hope the owner of the legal Rights site does come here to post as I could never post how much work went into it that provides such excellant information available to everyone.
Gunsmoke2 - GS2
2002-01-07, 01:06 AM
2002-01-07, 10:05 PM
So is Caffi and Legal rights one and the same.
What's with all the cloak and dagger stuff?
Guess I'll have to tune in until the mysterious man in black arrives.
Gunsmoke2 - GS2
2002-01-08, 03:48 AM
They are two different organizations.
What is cloak and dagger for you ? its all in the open. The person is battling cancer.
If you have any questions just ask.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gunsmoke2 - GS2 on 2002-01-08 03:50 ]</font>
2002-01-08, 12:49 PM
Hold on Gunsmoke,
First let me say that I'm glad that you and others have come to the aid of this individual and Canadians. I don't dispute that all donations are being put to good use. There is no question in my mind of impropriety rather it's a question of understanding who and what the site is about.
Second, I'm terribly sorry that the person running the site has cancer but cancer is not the issue I'm hinting at here.
Let me explain,
Typically most "organizations" have a mission statement, some policies, a board of directors, legal council etc. I suspect this organization is on a shoe string budget so I wouldn't expect all the trappings but I would expect a clear statement of who they are and what their mission is.
Judging from the articles, the mission is more than just fighting for the right of people to watch DirectTV and DISH in their homes hence my inquiry. If the sole purpose was this one cause then I'd donate some cash but in reading through the site there appears to be much more.
In my mind, the references to porn, Osama bin Laden and the liberal government are a bit over the top and prevent me from supporting the site.
I think if the site said "hey, we're a coalition of 5 satellite dealers, who've got screwed and we think satellite viewers are getting screwed for this this and this reason and if you support us, we're going to fight for your right to watch whatever you want in your home" then I'd send them $50 bucks. (sorry I'm not loaded!)
The cloak and dagger reference was to the anonymity situation. You and others seem to know the answer and it seemed odd not to reveal.
That's my two cents!
Gunsmoke2 - GS2
2002-01-09, 03:23 AM
I personally have nothing to do with the website nor what goes up on the site.
I don't know what other Donations the site is asking for other than the one to raise funds for the SCC. Its only that one I can comment on which was put to very good use.
SCAC.. CFACT all went down the tubes. C-Band alliance think they are special or exempt and would not help out no matter what we did including calls from lawyers. They are organized with board of Directors etc but they did absolutely nothing all this time. Some of them have this dislusion that they can claim some grandfather clause and legally be allowed to hook you up with HBO while DSS will not be able to if we lose the SCC.
It was only a few indivuduals which as you pointed out with little structure that realized that we had to act quickly to arrive where we are now. I wished that more came out of the closet sort of speak.
Can-Am was going bankrupt before the BC Court of appeals. Their phone lines had been disconnected. One indivudual who wishes to remain unknown donated a substantial amount to Richard Rex of Can -Am to keep him in buisness.
Myself and my wife have donated $12,000.00
I have spent over $100,000 on my own case on legal fees.
I can personally vouch for the owner of legal rights site as having done so much in creating awareness and encouraging Canadians to fight for their rights.
I indentify your hint and understand your point.
I am at a little of a loss to understand what some folks here are saying. Firstly legal-rights has been in existence for over 2 years now and is well known in the satelliete community. You will see free banner adds on most DSS sites and forums donated by the site owners linking to our site.
As to WHO WE ARE there is a link on the main page that says exactly that.
Myself, GS2 and Satmedic (in this post) are Admins on DssChat and Innermatrix (among others), two of the best known and largest satellite sites on the Internet and have been for several years.
If anyone thinks that the problem BEV had with porn (and the public apology they posted on their own site) that they were forced to drop and my comments regarding their ads which portray Canadians as teaching their children to steal and if you are not offended, well I am. I have no argument with porn as I believe in freedom of Choice but they acted badly and had to withdraw to channels that went overboard by BEV's own admission.
And its just as logical to say that because "mommy and daddy put in a BEV system that carries porno" that they are teaching kids to view porno as it is to say that Canadians are teaching their children to steal. Does anyone here KNOW anyone who teaches their children to steal? I certainly do NOT and I find the suggestion they make offensive.
Also I make the entire site at legal rights myself but legal-rights is visited by over 100,000 people daily, many of whom are its members. We financed the CanAm lawsuits all the way through the BC court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court through member donations. Nobody else did that and some large community people such as CBAC did not donate one cent. But we to there and we expect to win just as our position has won in 17 courts across Canada. That cost a substantial amount of money (against Bell ExpressVu) and it was all given to the lawyers who deposited it in their trust funds and donated by our members. Absolutely not one cent was used for expenses of any kind, travel, meetings or anything. 100% of the funds donated were paid out to the lawyers. The executive consists of 3 members, Myself, (To The REAL King!! or Reg Scullion) GS2 and Mr. David Fuss in Toronto. We are totally unpaid and we also donated very heavily ourselves (as GS2 explains above) to support this BEV action against CanAm who NONE of us even knew before this case. We supported them strictly because they won their case in the Superior court in BC and we felt their case had merit for setting jurisprudence in Canada. They were initially attacked by Bell ExpressVu with an Anton Piller order which is a seizure BEFORE judgement. And they won the case but ran out of money doing so. We cooperated and supported them financially and assisted in the suit as well as we have a large body of accumulated jurisprudence available to all.
For those of you who know SCAC in existence since 1983, I also make and maintain their website to help the Satellite community in Canada at:
As to us being Jean Monty wannabees, I recommend that you read my personal letter to Mr. Monty at:
It is signed by myself, Reginald Scullion and expresses my dislike of his practises as you can see from this letter. If you don't agree you can always open your own web site and express YOUR opinions too. Or you can do that right here :smile:
Much of the problems in the Satellite industry today are caused by this "johnny come lately" Bell ExpressVu who began broadcasting in 1997. I have been in this community selling C-band systems since 1983 as have very many of our legal-rights members.
It seems to me that we have some of the finest politicians that money can buy in Canada and if you think that is false, look up the numbers that BEV and BCE donated to the liberal Party in 1997 and 1998. You will find it exceeds 5000% (yes exceeds 5 thousand percent) of the average business donation in Canada. The data is posted on the legal rights website.
But Canadians do have rights and the government should NOT try to misinterpret legislation and law just because their buddy Bell ExpressVu came into being. And the courts say that is EXACTLY what they were doing and we agree.
So I am sorry folks but just because some of the members of this site may not know who we are, that does NOT make us newbies in the community and we are well known in the industry and have led in the cooperation between defendants lawyers in Canada and we have won 17 lawsuits in Canada on just the issue that BEV is fighting us in the Supreme Court about. They state that there is an "ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION" against Canadians receiving encrypted satellite signals in Canada and we say that is nonsence in a democracy.
They have done nothing but lose as has the Canadian Government right up to and including the Ontario Court of appeals the second highest court in Canada as well as the BC court of Appeals.
So if you don't know us or are not familiar with
please visit us and spend a little time reading some of the information on our site. When I post editorials (opinion) I state that clearly and if you do not like my opinion, please don't read that. But just like a newspaper that has an unsigned editorial page (all of them) I do have a right to express my opinion.
We clearly DO NOT support the theft of Satellite signals in Canada (of BEV or * Choice as that is clearly illegal) exactly as the courts have ruled on this issue and we have led this fight (for the right to view FOREIGN broadcasts) against BEV and the Government with great success where it concerns "grey market" too. We have also won a number of Black Market cases because if it is NOT legally sold the courts have ruled that Canadians have a right to view it.
And we will continue to do so and support the Satellite community in Canada who want help and who have existed since LONG before BEV came into existence and wh had to DEPEND on foreign broadcasts from 1979 to 1997, and we help those in the USA where we can offer assistance as well.
That is who we are and why we exist. And while I am on many sites, this is the first time I became aware of this site. So I understand why some of the posters here do not know legal-rights even though we are very well known throughout the community with minor exceptons.
Hopefully we are no longer unknown to the members here and you will become familiar with us before you continue to criticize us as was done above. Criticizing us when you may only have glanced at our site is not all that helpful and reading further you may agree with many of the issues we believe in. You never know but you have to look deeper than just the surface to find out!!!
Oh and "troublemaker" you seem to be a man of your name because not only do we state who we are and what our purpose is but our names are clearly all over the site for all to see. Where sir is the anonymity in that. My real name is Reg Scullion but I see you use a nickname on the Internet too as we all do. But its not any mystry as to who I am and its posted on many of our pages. Perhaps you should look a little closer unless you have a reason to criticise without bothering to look.
For instance at:
While this site has 65 registered users, the site I administer has over 90,000 registered members with over 15 million views, just a tad more mainstream it would seem.
The other site I administer on has only 22,000 members but thats slightly more than the 65 members here.
So not wishing to make smart remarks, but I remind myself that you are not yet among the mainstream of the Satellite community.
Keep up the good work but try not to rag those who are long in the mainstream when you are newbies of the first order. There is nothing wrong with that and I wish the site a lot of luck and success, but try not to criticize too much as your credibility is not the highest yet.
65 members does not put you in the mainstream but a combined 110,000 registered members and over 20 million views does qualify And 100,000 visits daily on legal-rights is quite mainstream and a lot of people DO know us well. Please have a look before you leap :smile:
And "Filthy" are you a man of your name too? You may have jumped to an erroneous conclusion if it was in any way reasoned. But your comments don't seem to be reasoned much.
Best of luck to the Site Owners and Admins too, if any, and as I am into HDTV I will be visiting your home theater forums too.
Thanks & Good Luck,
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ttrk on 2002-01-09 08:04 ]</font>
I'm closing this thread.
TTRK, I DON'T know why you need to denigrate this site and it's small numbers because of one persons posts.
You're fond of slogans so let me say "might does not make right"
Slapping a label of newbie on people is a perjorative designed to marginalize someone much like a large corporation calling someone a pirate.
Rather than maligning people and a website, I suggest you could ignore it or post rationale arguments designed to counter THE INDIVIDUALS post for "Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!"