Distant Networks vs. EchoStar Update

[Scott Greczkowski]

Distant Networks vs. EchoStar Update

Monday December 4, 2006


On November 29, 2006 the Plaintiffs (ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX) filed an motion with the United States District Court Southern District Of Florida requesting an Issuance of an Order to Show Cause why EchoStar and “two parties acting in concert with EchoStar” should not be held in contempt. United States District Judge William Dimitrouleas has issued an order referring this motion to United States Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer for “appropriate disposition or report and recommendation.

It was further ordered that the parties or their counsel send a copy of all relevant pleading and filing directly to the Magistrate Judge. In a related order, Judge Dimitrouleas denied a request by Mike Mountford of NPS to have attorneys not from the state of Florida to represent his interests in this case. Stay tuned to the Transmitter News for further updates as they become available.

If you haven’t done so, visit the Transmitter News website and sign up for the email version of the Transmitter News. We will be emailing updates as they become available.

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

What does that mean in plain English. Sounds like its going up the Judicial Chain of Command to the next level

 

[EJMCOL]

No, its actually going DOWN the judicial chain, not up it.

Magistrates handle more of the "relatively" minor, administrative tasks assigned to them by the judge. The magistrate cannot enter an order by themselves, they submit findings and conclusions to the judge, and the judge 99.9 percent of the time then signs the recommendations into order. Though the judges theoretically can go opposite of the magistrate's recommendations, they almost never do.

This system helps alleviate time and scheduling constraints on the judge, especially in matters like this where the judge thinks there will need to be considerable time spent examining the claims, testimony, affidavits, and documents just to rule on a motion, as opposed to a disposition of the entire case.

This process takes time. Once the magistrate even gets around to submitting the formal recommendation to the judge, the parties usually have a few weeks to submit objections to the magistrate's report to be considered by the judge before he signs it into an order.

Also, it appears that NPS wanted to use its own in-house or local counsel to handle the Florida hearings and filed a request to do so, which the court denied. This means that NPS must now pay to hire lawyers licensed to practice in Florida to handle the case - something it did NOT want to do or they wouldn't have filed the motion requesting it.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

If NPS is held in contempt, then they may have fines/damages to pay.

They have gotten in bed with E* and rolled the dice.

 

[cybertrip]

Also, it appears that NPS wanted to use its own in-house or local counsel to handle the Florida hearings and filed a request to do so, which the court denied. This means that NPS must now pay to hire lawyers licensed to practice in Florida to handle the case - something it did NOT want to do or they wouldn't have filed the motion requesting it.

Looks like NPS may be going down the hole soon. I'm just waiting for Dishnetwork to buy them out. They might as well considering how much they are working together now, and don't say they aren't because we all know what is really going on.

 

[riffjim4069]

The NPS scam was clearly in violation of both the letter and intent of the court order. The Judge would have already dismissed the plaintiff's motion for show cause if it weren't without significant merit. I feel that EchoStar will be found to be in contempt, which explains why the magistrate is being tasked to carefully review all evidence and provide formal recommendation for disposition.

 

[Stargazer]

Dish has NPS try to switch their C-Band customers over to Dish Network if I am not mistaken.

 

[Foxbat]

In a related order, Judge Dimitrouleas denied a request by Mike Mountford of NPS to have attorneys not from the state of Florida to represent his interests in this case.

Translation: Our poor ol' Florida Lawyers need to pay for those cigarette boats and Mercedes somehow; I'll throw them a bone.

It's one thing to not be licensed to practice in a state, and another thing to require the lawyers be "from the state". Since I don't know the attorneys that NPS was trying to use, I can't say one way or the other.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

Translation: Our poor ol' Florida Lawyers need to pay for those cigarette boats and Mercedes somehow; I'll throw them a bone.

It's one thing to not be licensed to practice in a state, and another thing to require the lawyers be "from the state". Since I don't know the attorneys that NPS was trying to use, I can't say one way or the other.

Since the lead attorney for Plaintiffs in this case is based in DC, its clear the ruling had nothing to do with his place of residence - but which bars he was a member of.

Quite frankly, it was a very smart move by the judge, because when NPS lost this ruling, they would claim it was because their counsel was not familar with the procedings in this district etc etc etc and try to drag it out more on appeal.

This closes that avenue for NPS.

By referring the motion to the Magistrate for guidance, it also helps to close other possible appeal tatics from E* and NPS of error.

Thus, all this, while on the surface might make little sense, is actually well thought out move to remove further BS in this case.

 

[GeorgeLV]

Translation: Our poor ol' Florida Lawyers need to pay for those cigarette boats and Mercedes somehow; I'll throw them a bone.

It's one thing to not be licensed to practice in a state, and another thing to require the lawyers be "from the state". Since I don't know the attorneys that NPS was trying to use, I can't say one way or the other.

That decision stands out as unreasonable to me. It's Federal District Court. What a racket the Florida bar must have.

 

[ThomasRz]

That decision stands out as unreasonable to me. It's Federal District Court. What a racket the Florida bar must have.

This has nothing to do with the Florida Bar. Federal District Courts admit attorneys to practice before them. As a general rule, the attorney must be licensed by the state. there is no "federal" licensing, where the court is located. The court can grant an exception but in this case chose not to do so. I too think he smelled a rat (another E* delaying tactic).

 

[Juan]

Actually after years of watching Judge Judy, Judge Wapner. When a Judge tell s the defendant or plaintiff not to speak..That side is usually winning , (In this case the judge refused to allow NPS Lawyer from out of dstate to speak).. Perhaps the Judge fely NPS had nothing to defend?

 

[mkm4]

Dish has NPS try to switch their C-Band customers over to Dish Network if I am not mistaken.

That would be Netlink, which Dish owns, not NPS. NPS would only tell you it's an option. Netlink would force it down your throat and would out-and-out lie about C band channel status.

 

[Hall]

Actually after years of watching Judge Judy, Judge Wapner. When a Judge...

Great, base your understanding of the judicial process on those type shows !

 

[Hall]

This has nothing to do with the Florida Bar. Federal District Courts admit attorneys to practice before them. As a general rule, the attorney must be licensed by the state. there is no "federal" licensing, where the court is located.

The state that the court happens to be located in should have no bearing on what states the attorneys are licensed in. The federal courts should be independent of where they're physically located. Further, these are federal laws that are being dealt with, not state laws.

 

[abricko]

Distants don't effect me at all... we all know what NPS is doing BUT I think it's a perfectly legal technicality. E* is leasing NPS the space and NPS is selling the channels. As long as they are legally allowed to sell the channels and pay their proper dues, .they are just a business filling a need (opportunists knowing that E* can't) ... what's the problem?

 

[ThomasRz]

The state that the court happens to be located in should have no bearing on what states the attorneys are licensed in. The federal courts should be independent of where they're physically located. Further, these are federal laws that are being dealt with, not state laws.

Well, take it up with the federal courts. They make their own rules in this situation. Note that in many cases, a federal court deals with state laws or may even have a state court case that has been removed to them. Thus, it is not arbitrary to make a condition of practice, admission to the bar of the state. As noted, the judge could have accepted the out of state attorneys but chose not to. Only he knows his reasons but I think stiffarming another dilatory tactic by the E* side was the motivation.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

As noted, the judge could have accepted the out of state attorneys but chose not to. Only he knows his reasons but I think stiffarming another dilatory tactic by the E* side was the motivation.

Not it. The out of court lawyer forgot to pay some kind of fee to the court, which is why the judge ruled the way he did.

 

[SmityWhity]

Me? I think he has enough of the plaintiffs, figures they may loose this time, and can pay NEW/ADDITIONAL attorney fees!

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

Not it. The out of court lawyer forgot to pay some kind of fee to the court, which is why the judge ruled the way he did.

Then the judge did NPS a favor if the guy can't even pay his bills.