The Golden RuleThe problem is I don't have $100.000 to pay an attorney to go after it.
Charlie will spend a million in litigation to avoid paying a million out.
Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
DISH seems to be doing OK after you fired them.
The Golden RuleThe problem is I don't have $100.000 to pay an attorney to go after it.
Charlie will spend a million in litigation to avoid paying a million out.
Probably better!The Golden Rule
Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
DISH seems to be doing OK after you fired them.
It's too bad your case apparently isn't strong enough to attract a lawyer willing to take it on contingency...The problem is I don't have $100.000 to pay an attorney to go after it.
Charlie will spend a million in litigation to avoid paying a million out.
It's too bad your case apparently isn't strong enough to attract a lawyer willing to take it on contingency...
I had a lawyer, but we couldn't agree on how to split the potential settlement.

The Golden Rule
Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
DISH seems to be doing OK after you fired them.
Are you saying they would bleed more if you were still there ?Yeah, they lost 3 million subs in 7 years.
Seems to be doing very well bleeding subscribers without me.
So it was your call not to go after Dish then...I had a lawyer, but we couldn't agree on how to split the potential settlement.
And DTV lost almost 1 million in Q2 2019 alone. Apparently they're not doing so well with you...Yeah, they lost 3 million subs in 7 years.
Seems to be doing very well bleeding subscribers without me.
The problem is I don't have $100.000 to pay an attorney to go after it.
Charlie will spend a million in litigation to avoid paying a million out.
Are you saying they would bleed more if you were still there ?
So it was your call not to go after Dish then...
So your ex-partner apparently thought his claim was stronger than yours. Ok, got it...The deal was to go in 50/50 with a former business associate of mine and for his lawyer to represent me on contingency.
I was fine with the deal until I learned the plan was to take the settlement money, put it in escrow in Chicago and then my former business associate was going to sue me for the rest.
So I did what I had to do and put a stop to the whole thing.
I had a good case but the issue was explaining it to a lawyer to take the case on contingency.
That is so much more than I wanted to know.The deal was to go in 50/50 with a former business associate of mine and for his lawyer to represent me on contingency.
I was fine with the deal until I learned the plan was to take the settlement money, put it in escrow in Chicago and then my former business associate was going to sue me for the rest.
So I did what I had to do and put a stop to the whole thing.
I had a good case but the issue was explaining it to a lawyer to take the case on contingency.
Yeah but statute of limitations doesn't apply to trash talking DISH inI imagine that the statute of limitations has long since passed so it sounds like a moot point now.
My favorites are the ones claiming my account has been compromised at some company where I've never had an account.![]()
So your ex-partner apparently thought his claim was stronger than yours. Ok, got it...
I imagine that the statute of limitations has long since passed so it sounds like a moot point now.