Ergen, Dish On Dangerous Legal trajectory

What I wonder is, if they truly owe $1,000,000 why hasn't he filed a lawsuit? Evidently he has and it was thrown out on a summary judgement, or there is no legal standing to file and it is a he said she said type deal.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
What I wonder is, if they truly owe $1,000,000 why hasn't he filed a lawsuit? Evidently he has and it was thrown out on a summary judgement, or there is no legal standing to file and it is a he said she said type deal.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

Regardless, it's Claude's business with Dish and I'll leave it at that. I feel no need for him to explain the whole situation on here as it's between him and Dish. I just always remember that Claude's views on Dish are a little more skewed than others and that's ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop
What I wonder is, if they truly owe $1,000,000 why hasn't he filed a lawsuit? Evidently he has and it was thrown out on a summary judgement, or there is no legal standing to file and it is a he said she said type deal.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

Seriously? One guy that lives in Detroit, facing a multi-billion dollar corp that has lawyers on staff, and said company sues for every possible reason that they can and sometimes for no reason. Lawyers won't likely take this on contingency, and it costs plenty to fight that sort of battle, especially since Claude probably would be forced to fight this in Colorado courts.
 
Seriously? One guy that lives in Detroit, facing a multi-billion dollar corp that has lawyers on staff, and said company sues for every possible reason that they can and sometimes for no reason. Lawyers won't likely take this on contingency, and it costs plenty to fight that sort of battle, especially since Claude probably would be forced to fight this in Colorado courts.
If there was a good chance of some recovery, I wouldn't think finding an attorney would be a problem.
Also, I doubt he is the only dealer they allegedly "cheated," if there were enough proof that Dish wronged these dealers, why hasn't a couple of them got together and filed a class action?.
But at any rate it is all just speculation. None of my business.
My point is that Claude has a very jaded view of Dish and that has been made clear in his posts ad nauseam.
It would probably be best if I had just ignored his post.
I will end this post and hopefully the subject, with the words of Forrest Gump, "that's all I've got to say about that."
 
To give Claude some hope, a high school friend of mine (we also roomed together at Purdue freshman year) ended up with a nice Cisco business in California. He was doing quite well, until he was working on providing Cisco hardware for a new subdivision and Cisco decided to take all the pre-work, poached the customer from him, and handed it over to a higher-level distributor. He cried "foul" and sued Cisco. Everyone told him he was crazy, to just shrug it off and go back to his Cisco distributorship, but he's from the Midwest where we tend to try for more ethical business dealings. He found a sympathetic judge and was able to win a substantial judgement against Cisco.
(Ha! Found it right away! http://www.crn.com/news/channel-pro...agrees-to-pay-var-5-45-million-settlement.htm and http://searchitchannel.techtarget.c...-in-Cisco-lawsuit-benefits-all-Cisco-partners)

I'm happy for my friend but I still buy Cisco products.
 
If there was a good chance of some recovery, I wouldn't think finding an attorney would be a problem.
Also, I doubt he is the only dealer they allegedly "cheated," if there were enough proof that Dish wronged these dealers, why hasn't a couple of them got together and filed a class action?.
But at any rate it is all just speculation. None of my business.
My point is that Claude has a very jaded view of Dish and that has been made clear in his posts ad nauseam.
It would probably be best if I had just ignored his post.
I will end this post and hopefully the subject, with the words of Forrest Gump, "that's all I've got to say about that."


The issue is that all the attorneys I spoke with are estimating I will need a minimum $100,000 and that does not guarantee I will need to come up with more money or will be successful in my efforts.

I did find 1 idiot attorney who agreed to take on the case on contingency as long as I split any settlement with another guy I used to work with.

Unfortunately the attorney had a substance abuse problem, and the guy I used to work with was a drunk.

They couldn't agree to any terms and kept changing the agreement so I told them to forget it. Now the both of them are suing me for some made up garbage.

Best bet for me is to go to Denver and request arbitration as per the Dish agreement. Again, it's a matter of dollars.

As far as my money owed, it's a matter of residuals on accounts previously sold. The reason why I'm no longer a Dish dealer is the fact they did not want to continue to pay me residuals.

The residuals I was making at the time was upwards to $40,000/mo

Now granted I never actually made $40,000 profit because I reinvested that money back into the business every month so I could continue to grow, but it was a heck of a lot of money.
 
The issue is that all the attorneys I spoke with are estimating I will need a minimum $100,000 and that does not guarantee I will need to come up with more money or will be successful in my efforts.

I did find 1 idiot attorney who agreed to take on the case on contingency as long as I split any settlement with another guy I used to work with.

Unfortunately the attorney had a substance abuse problem, and the guy I used to work with was a drunk.

They couldn't agree to any terms and kept changing the agreement so I told them to forget it. Now the both of them are suing me for some made up garbage.

Best bet for me is to go to Denver and request arbitration as per the Dish agreement. Again, it's a matter of dollars.

As far as my money owed, it's a matter of residuals on accounts previously sold. The reason why I'm no longer a Dish dealer is the fact they did not want to continue to pay me residuals.

The residuals I was making at the time was upwards to $40,000/mo

Now granted I never actually made $40,000 profit because I reinvested that money back into the business every month so I could continue to grow, but it was a heck of a lot of money.

I see your problem, arbitration. I had thought that might be in the dealer contracts, like the customer agreements, but wasn't sure. That of course would make it quite hard to sue. I can see your dilemma regarding filing a suit.


Sent from my iPad using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
Sorry, but I bad as it might be to work for Charlie and as bad as his company's transgressions may be, he is still T-ball league to the likes of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick running Uber like a pirate cab company OUTSIDE the law and seemingly far WORSE sexual harassment than Dish's one recorded instance. And when Uber refused to pay the California DMV nominal fee of $150 for each driver-less vehicle (total of 16 Uber cars), Uber just put the cars on the public street for use as if you or me did NOT pay our own DMV fees. DMV had to rescind existing permits and Uber had to concede and shut the program down until it applies and receives permits LAWFULLY. And the arrogant CEO Travis was WARNED about the DMV's requirements and that Uber would be shut down for not paying the fees, but he chose to operate as a PIRATE, anyway, in violation of the LAW. The same types of laws you and me obey and pay to LEGALLY operate our vehicles on public streets.

How about Comcast's infamous CEO Brian Roberts? That guy's company is telling TiVo owners that CableCard is no longer supported, which is a LIE and AGAINST the LAW. Only after people keep up the process of not giving up does Comcast seem to admit that CableCard is still supported, and through the process subscribers are encouraged to dump their TiVo and pay for a Comcast box, instead. Now Comcast is ILLEGALLY charging increased fees for CableCards--even though its own rate card states $0 in some cases (or in other cases only a few dollars). Of course the new anti-consumer FCC will do nothing, and may have even emboldened Comcast, for this new "CableCard not supported" attitude is very recent.

Let's not forget DirecTV when under CEO Mike White's reign, DTV was SUED by the FTC (and that's as bad as it can get--being sued by the FTC means your company practices are so bad that even the often "out-to-lunch" government can't ignore such behavior) for "Deceptive Practices" costing its subscribers significant amounts of money due to DTV's lack of "disclosure" in ads and verbally at the time of ordering the service or, in layman's terms, a LIE of omission at best, or complete lie at worst and so illegal that the FTC had to SUE over it. And no matter what is in writing, if your are told something verbally that is contrary to what is in the written contract and a company does not support the verbal portion of the contract, that is illegal. That is tough to prove, but thanks to printed ads and "inspections" (recording the verbal portions), it can come back to bite a company.

And then there is Darth Murdoch (Rupert) who operated so outside of decency and the law (a life time occupation for the scrappy ol Fox) that he had no choice but to shut down a long-lived UK newspaper, it got so bad. He had to testify at UK hearings, etc. possibly facing criminal charges himself at the time. Hardly a comparison to Dish and Charlie.

How about some of the POT and wireless companies who were caught charging bogus fees that were listed as "Taxes" when, in fact, no such taxes existed and none of that money went to any government? So where did the money for these "taxes" go? You guessed it! Into the pockets of those companies who sent out the bills.

There are many more examples, and while Dish deserves whatever it has coming to it if Dish does do the wrong thing or violate the law, but PLEASE, as bad as Charlie may be, he nor Dish do not even come close to the CEO's and companies cited above because in those cases it cost consumers or taxpayers real MONEY, and that is far worse than getting an unwanted phone call during dinner. Yet, all those CEO's and companies pretty much get away with it for less money than what was originally calculated as damages Dish was to pay for disturbing us with our mouths full. It's should be the reverse but like cats at the feeding bowl, we are not in a mood to be disturbed while chowing down; cheat us out of money with deceptive business practices, charge us phone "taxes" that are really fees, and listen to private phone messages and then publish the contents in a newspaper and WE ARE FINE WITH THAT. Like in that Carl's Jr. (or Hardee's ) TV commercial: "Don't bother me; I'm eating."
 
Last edited:
The only thing I'll NEVER forgive Charlie for, is him dropping VOOM. A lot of good it did him, since he lost the court battle in that one.

Monsters HD is the main reason I ever subscribed to Dish in the first place.
VOOM...Wow.
Gotta tell ya...Dish dropping VOOM was business. Not personal. Although many of the few thousand total VOOM viewers across the country felt it was a personal attack.
In any event, Dish dropped the VOOM service because it took up much needed transponder space. For a service that catered to a relatively small niche audience,. it hardly made sense for Dish to keep the services.
Plus, they needed the 61.5 slot for other more popular services.
Fast forward to today. My guess is there are plenty of other avenues by which the VOOM viewers can view that programming they so were attached.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Charlie thinks himself and Dish is above the law.

I think Charlie has a ranch in the middle of several other ranches with no access to the road. Charlie fought the other property owners to the point where he wore them down so he could build a road across their land to get to his property.

There is no regard for anything with Dish, they just do it and if they get caught cry like a kid who got his hand in the cookie jar.

Here is one nobody knows about. Back in 1999 Dish acquired the 110 slot but had no satellite.

At the time they had a satellite (echostar 4) at 148 that was being used for international programming.

Dish decided to move echostar 4 to 110 which created an issue with customers who where getting international programming from 148.

So over night Dish crammed all the programming from the 148 orbital slot to the 119 orbital slot.

This took care of most customers who had a 119/148 Dish setup.

Then over the next few weeks repainted all the customers who only had 148 to 119.

What Dish did not tell anyone is that they used the 11 extra transponders at 119 that where not being used, but owned by Primestar.

Dish illegally used transponders on 119 that they where not licensed to use or had ownership of.

Perfect example how Dish feels they are above the law
As much as this is a time tor many to take shots at Ergen, here are a couple of items.
One. If Ergen had not done some of things he did to get Dish moving and competitive and waited for federal bureaucrats to get off their overpaid over stuffed asses to finally form a committee to form a task force to form another committee to consider a vote on allowing Ergen's company to move forward, there would be ONE satellite company. Fees would be much higher for programming.
Two...while no one is perfect, having Ergen forming Dish as an option certainly has been a benefit to consumers.
 
VOOM...Wow.
Gotta tell ya...Dish dropping VOOM was business. Not personal. Although many of the few thousand total VOOM viewers across the country felt it was a personal attack.
In any event, Dish dropped the VOOM service because it took up much needed transponder space. For a service that catered to a relatively small niche audience,. it hardly made sense for Dish to keep the services.
Plus, they needed the 61.5 slot for other more popular services.
Fast forward to today. My guess is there are plenty of other avenues by which the VOOM viewers can view that programming they so were attached.
I miss VOOM.
 
I do not know how it is in Michigan where you live, or the State where Charlie has the ranch. But in Alabama he would be well within his right to "fight" for access to his land. In this State, you have to grant an easement for access to property that doesn't connect to a public road in order to give the land owner access to his property.
That is common in every state. One landowner may not land lock another land owner by refusing access to a public right of way
 
Are the programs that appeared on VOOM not available elsewhere?
My wife and I loved Voom's art channel called "Gallery HD". To date, I have not seen any of that channel's programming anywhere else. Wikipedia does not even have an entry for Gallery HD. I do realize that Voom was showing the same programming over and over on many channels, but they did a lot of original programming on Gallery HD which seems to have just disappeared.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell