Court Case,


Diamond Member
Username: Nydas

Post Number: 21723
Registered: Jun-06
Dish Network v. Schwartz

Information provided by A_Z_A - March 3, 2011

Defendant is involved in and/or is responsible for manufacturing, distributing, promoting, installing, and using pirate tools and software. Defendant's tools and software are primarily designed to, and do, allow end-users to circumvent the technological measures that Plaintiffs utilize to protect access to copyrighted works distributed by DISH Network. This circumvention occurs without authorization or permission from Plaintiffs.

Defendant used the moniker "Richiemiami" on satellite piracy websites, including without limitation, www . and www . Defendant's posts indicate that he is the owner and operator of www . and www .

Defendant creates and posts videos on www . that contain instructions on modifying and using unauthorized receivers and IKS to illegally receive and view DISH Network programming without authorization from or payment of a subscription fee to DISH Network. These videos show Defendant's unauthorized interception of DISH Network programming.

Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Schwartz
Plaintiffs: Dish Network L.L.C. , Echostar Technologies L.L.C. and Nagrastar LLC
Defendants: Richard Schwartz and Thomas Finneran

Case Number: 9:2011cv80142
Filed: February 3, 2011

Court: Florida Southern District Court
Office: West Palm Beach Office
County: Palm Beach
Presiding Judge: Kenneth L. Ryskamp

Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Cable/Satellite TV
Cause: 47:0605
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: None "

Silver Member
Username: Parilla

El Paso, Texas

Post Number: 610
Registered: Mar-11
That is VERY OLD news my dear friend

Silver Member
Username: Jitu

Post Number: 649
Registered: Jan-08
It is ONLY five months old

Silver Member
Username: Jojogun

Fairfield, CA United States

Post Number: 613
Registered: Apr-06
Guess it's time to remove my dish antennas from my roof.

Silver Member
Username: Chaff

Post Number: 810
Registered: Feb-10
Can-Am Satellites (Richard Rex) Charter Challenge

August 14th, 2009, Vancouver, BC

Today, the Supreme Court of BC granted an injunction to Dish Network to prevent us from helping any Canadian receive any programming being broadcast by Dish Network.

In addition, Can-Am Satellites has been ordered to turn over to Dish Network all of our customer names and receiver information so that Dish Network can terminate their programming. Dish Network may also pursue legal action against these customers, who, it was discovered during the hearing, are liable for a fine of up to $1000 for each day for violation of the Radiocommunications Act. This means that if a customer was to be proven by Dish Network that they viewed their programming for, say seven years, then the fine could be as much as 7 x 365 x $1000 = $2,555,000. While I hope that this kind of fine will never be imposed, it demonstrates the draconian and repressive force of the Radiocommunications Act to deny ordinary Canadians from watching television signals of their choice.

The good news is that Justice Walker indicated that he would reverse his decision if Can-Am Satellites or any of its affected customers made the proper applications and could demonstrate to him a competent, well thought-out argument for a defense with some likelihood of success based on Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was presented to the Court.

With no financial resources to obtain legal counsel for this hearing, I was left to represent myself (and, in effect, all customers) in Court. This was a big mistake since I have no legal knowledge; all of the issues that I addressed with the Court, while truthful and accurate, could not be admitted or considered because it was not presented as evidence. It is imperative that if you want the Court to consider reversing the injunction, then professional legal counsel is required.

When we originally were served by Directv with an injunction, I sought legal advice. I was told that the cost to defend the actions all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada would cost a minimum of $200,000 to $300,000.

I have about 500 Dish Network customers. If half of you come forward with $1000 for a legal defense in the next week or so, then we would be able to present a good argument (your right to freedom!) to the Court, which would go a long way to getting your programming back legally without any crazy fines.

If you can help, please email me at----

Yours truly,

Richard Rex

Owner, Can-Am Satellites


Silver Member
Username: Chaff

Post Number: 845
Registered: Feb-10

Diamond Member
Username: Nydas

Post Number: 21824
Registered: Jun-06
I read the Judge Walker decision in detail, and he has awarded Rex advance cost of $35000 to prepare, and will be ordering more advance costs. He has not even put a ceiling.
Advance costs as I see it in this case, requires the Attorney General of Canada and the providers (Bell DTV, and Dish) to share the cost awarded, so Rex can continue with the Charter litigation.
I think this is the first spark of freedom for receiving paid programming from outside of Canada, and I hope Rex succeeds

Diamond Member
Username: Nydas

Post Number: 21826
Registered: Jun-06
When you read through the whole judgment, Judge Walker, has nullified most of the arguments of Bell and of the two big American providers.

One must remember, that this is an action by Rex against the Big three and also against the Crown (Government of Canada is known also as the Crown in litigation). The whole judgment document oozes with support for Rex.

Rex has asked the judge for "Advance costs" i.e. money to be assessed against Bell, Dish, etc., prior to proceeding with his Charter case against the big three. His request was based on historical similar awards, where there is a tremendous disparity between the small guy looking for Justice under the Charter of Rights, and the biggies who are supported by Government. The judge agreed to give him "Advance costs". He had requested about $600,000 to pursue the matter in the courts. Even this has NOT been denied. There was a request by the Big guys including the Crown for a ceiling of $1,000,000, as Advance Costs, which ceiling has not been set, mainly because the judge was not given the details of what the Government and the big companies might spend for litigation, and what the nature of their defense evidence might be.

The Charter thrust by Rex is based on section 2(b) of the Charter, which reads;
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.

The judge has directed Rex to pursue the matter under Section 1 of the Charter, which reads;
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The reason for directing Rex in this direction (Challenge under Section1) is that, in the judge's opinion, a charter challenge under section 1 is likely to resolve sooner, and with less overall cost. That was another reason for not setting a ceiling on Advance Costs award, because the judge has not been officially appraised of the likely costs if Rex pursued the Section 1 challenge.

All this came about because of the Supreme Court of Canada judgement against Rex, way back in 1992 (?), where the judges left room for Rex to pursue a Charter of Rights challenge. The current judgment by Judge Walker also implies that Rex may pursue the Charter route of defense, and prosecute the big ones, even at this late stage.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us