|
Platinum Member Username: NydasPost Number: 19854 Registered: Jun-06 | Basically the Ramkissons had already pleaded guilty of contempt (not of satellite piracy) and this was a sentence hearing. He got 4 months and she got 2 months to be served separately so that there is one parent available to look after the children. I have only posted the relevant parts of the Order CITATION: Dish Network LLC v. Ramkissoon, 2010 ONSC COURT FILE NO.: 09-8091-00CL DATE: 20100917 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: DISH NETWORK LLC, ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC AND NAGRASTAR LLC Plaintiffs '" and '" RAVINDRANAUTH RAMKISSOON a.k.a RAVIN RAMKISSOON, RAVINDRANAUGH RAMKISSOON a.k.a. DIGITAL, RAVINDRANAUTH RAMKISSOON a.k.a. THEDIGITALSTORE, RAVINDRANAUTH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.thedigitalstore.com, RAVINDRANAUTH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.nfusionteam.com, RAVINDRANAUTH RAMKISSOON C.O.B. as www.canadasat.com, RAVINDRANAUTH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.dummychat.com, RAVINDRANAUTH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.infusioncanada.com, RAVINDRANAUTH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.infusioncanada.ca, RAVINDRANAUGH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.nfusiononline.com, RAVINDRANAUGH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.nfusionrepair.com, RAVINDRANAUTH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.nfusionwarrantycenter.com, RAVINDRANAUGH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.nuvenio.ca, RAVINDRANAUGH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as www.infusiondepo.com, RAVINDRANAUGH RAMKISSOON c.o.b. as DIGITAL R US, ANTHONY RAMKISSOON, ROSELINE RAMKISSOON, DIGITAL STORE INC., E-CANADA SOLUTIONS INC., JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and other persons unknown who have conspired with the name Defendants Defendants AND BETWEEN: COURT FILE NO: 09-809400-CL BELL EXPRESSVU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Plaintiff And same list of Defendants. HEARD: September 15 and 17, 2010 CUMMING J. REASONS FOR SENTENCE [5] I stated, at paras. 69 and 70: [69] I find beyond any reasonable doubt on the evidence that Mr. and Ms. Ramkissoon intentionally did not disclose, deliver up and grant access to the outer office area and back office in a timely manner during the execution of the Second Anton Piller Orders. They wilfully and deliberately blocked and prevented entry and access to these areas of the premises to frustrate the purpose of the Orders in preserving the Evidence. They intentionally prevented the ISS upon their entry to the premises from being able to observe Mr. Ramkissoon and Krishna who had access to the Evidence in the outer office area and back office. They were intentionally in breach of ss. 2 , 4, 5, 17, 18 and 19 of the Orders by not allowing the ISS to keep the Evidence under observation until access would be granted. They did not render the necessary assistance to the ISS to effectively carry out their responsibilities under the Orders. [70] I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ramkissoons deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the Second Anton Piller Orders. I find that Mr. and Ms. Ramkissoon are in contempt of the Second Anton Piller Orders. ... [6] There were important items of 'Evidence' relating to computers sought by the Second Anton Piller Orders, including the 'The hard drive from the HP Laptop' and 'Hard Drives 1, 2, 5 and 6 to the IBM Server or so-called Old Server.' (para. 1 of February 23, 2010 Reasons for Decision ). I stated, at paras. (89) and (99): [8] The Ramkissoons state (at para. 28 of their Factum) that 'they are sorry for their actions during the entry and with respect to the balance of the findings of contempt...to the extent such conduct impeded the search [and ]...regret and apologize for any delays in permitting entry and securing of the premises as found by this Honourable Court'. [18] The Plaintiffs seek their costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Their Costs Outline seeks total fees of $210,352.50, disbursements of $45,016.99 and GST of $10,517.63. Counsel for the Plaintiffs confirms that these costs have been billed to, and have been paid by, the Plaintiffs. In my view, costs on a substantial indemnity scale is appropriate in the circumstances. The costs are obviously considerable but were necessarily incurred by the Plaintiffs and were consequential solely because of the actions of Ravin and Roseline being in contempt in respect of the Second Anton Piller Orders. [21] The Ramkissoons have two young daughters and it is in the family's and society's interests that the children's parents not be incarcerated at the same time. Accordingly, upon Ravin serving his sentence of four months and being released from custody Rosaline will be taken into custody to serve her sentence of two months in prison. CUMMING J. Released: September 17, 2010 |
|
Gold Member Username: Saqeeb9000Post Number: 7322 Registered: Oct-07 | so nydas what were they doing?? with nfusion?? |
|
Platinum Member Username: NydasPost Number: 19856 Registered: Jun-06 | Ramkisoon and his wife were the persons importing and selling Nfusion. They had all those websites and shops listed above. DN (and Bell) started a case against them based on piracy and stealing signals. There is an established legal precedence in Canada called Anton Piller. "In English and English-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order (frequently misspelt Anton Pillar order) is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This prevents destruction of relevant evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements." The Ramkissoons got that order served on them with a Lawyer and Sheriff coming to their location. When served with such an order, the receipient of the order is required to co-operate with the authorities and give whatever is asked for in the Order. He did not do so immediately, and is said to have removed one hard drive, but gave them other hard drives asked for. Anyway, he was charged with "Contempt of Court". That is a very serious charge. In fact, he is lucky he was not also charged with "destroying evidence" or with "obstructing an officer of law from performing his duty". These are more serious charges. Contempt is usually an immediate thing - like an accused speaking badly to a judge in Court, and the reaction from the judge is swift by punishing him straight away. If a comtempt proceeding is delayed, I think usually it is another judge who will hear it; but I am not sure about this. Anyway, on advice of their lawyers they pleaded guilty to the charge of contempt i.e. they disobeyed a Court Order. That was some time ago. That hearing and the judge is quoting from the judgement at that time where I am refering to para 69 and 70. This recent hearing was just a Sentencing hearing, i.e. he is already guilty of contempt and the judge is passing a sentence, explaining his reason for giving a particular sentence. In this case, it seems a bit excessive (for a contempt charge) , and the judge has explained why. The amount of "legal costs" was also excessive and the judge feels justified, and has explained. There is no real appeal. He has pleaded guilty, and he can appeal only on the length of sentence or the amount of money. I don't know if he would be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea; I don't think so, unless he brings in a compelling reason to have pleaded guilty when he thought he was not gulty. The main issue of whether or not he did signal piracy is not tried yet. There is no particular finding that he actually destroyed evidence - there is an inference that he destroyed it. The judge has stressed this inference and this could be brought in at the actual trial for piracy of signals. In Canada there is a constitutiona safeguard agains "unreasonable" Search and Seizure. Defendants, in the past, have tried to argue against such a search, particularly a search without ability to defend, but the law has held that the opearative word in the Constitution, (in favour of the authority to search) is the word "unreasonable". If the judge issuing a search warrant, feels that the search is reasonable or that there is vital evidence that can and would be destroyed if the defendant has prior warning, then the judge would grant such an order. The orginal case law was in the English case of Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited [1976] Ch 55, and since then it has been known in legal parlance as an Anton Piller Order. Note that the destruction of evidence before the defendant comes to know about an Anton Piller Order against him - that destruction of evidence is not illegal in terme of Contempt or disobeying a law. I mean if there is no such order shown to him, he cannot have disobeyed the order. So the order is effective from the time it is shown to him officially. Any action AFTER he is shown and explained the order can be detrimental to him. The proof of having destoyed evidence can be brought to bear against a defendant, Again there, evidence is only evidence if there is a pending case. It is not evidence before a case is started in a Court of law - it is merely a record which got destroyed or mislaid for any reason. |