More Nfusion Docs

[chickenman]

Found this on another site......8001.......Thanks to Montanaman

[dishuser]

Found this on another site......8001.......Thanks to Montanaman

it was posted on this site yesterday actually

[chickenman]

it was posted on this site yesterday actually

Ok sorry . Delete the thread if you want

[dishuser]

Ok sorry . Delete the thread if you want

at least it's now in the right section:thumbsup:

[patch]

seems we now know why the moniker "superstar" was and is said to be more then one person .
Seems that was by design.
I do have a hard time discerning these docs thou. They are mostly confusing to me.
But i try :)

[DSSRUEL]

Seems that NF big guys R in deep xxxx

[dufta]

notice what for thought. The issue is aounrd the 8psk more than anything

[Turdblossom]

The way I am reading this is;

1) DN has filed a civil suit against Scheibe.

2) DN has filed for an asset "seize & freeze"

3) DN has used a deposition from CI #5 (big rat) in support of the "seize & freeze" motion

4) This doc is the defendant's (Scheibe's) motion to strike some of the testimony from CI #5's deposition that they hold to be inadmissible under the rules of evidence.

[patch]

The way I am reading this is;

1) DN has filed a civil suit against Scheibe.

2) DN has filed for an asset "seize & freeze"

3) DN has used a deposition from CI #5 (big rat) in support of the "seize & freeze" motion

4) This doc is the defendant's (Scheibe's) motion to strike some of the testimony from CI #5's deposition that they hold to be inadmissible under the rules of evidence.

thnx Turd :)
I don't know what you are saying is actually what this is about but with your thoughts in mind, I will go back in and re-read it. Maybe I can make more sense out of it now.
And dufta has said also what I had thought i was reading as well :)

[Turdblossom]

BTW, it sure appears that CI#5 is the real SuperStar aka RR

[gambit666]

BTW, it sure appears that CI#5 is the real SuperStar aka RR

I think this would be considered...conjecture? However that's what my guess would be as well....the comment made with regards to being in jail leads to this assumption.

[HammerSet]

BTW, it sure appears that CI#5 is the real SuperStar aka RR

none of them, for sure:


Whistleblower #5 ¶ 20
Michael Cho, Kevin Clifton, Warren
Scheibe, and I all understood that
NFusion piracy modules were specifically

so far the "I" is the #5

what is it in red ? page 6


Attached as Exhibit 14 are images of four cartons of NFusion
piracy modules seized at my Vaughn storefront.

[gambit666]

none of them, for sure:



so far the "I" is the #5

what is it in red ? page 6

Nice Catch Hammer!

Oops, didn't quite qoute that correctly.

[Turdblossom]

Vaughn is a sub of Toronto

Did Digital have a store there????

If not Digital, who??

[Teamwork000]

Light bulbs are turning on...RR may have protected the Customers, but it seems like a battle between partners, but just my opinion from what I interpret, from the various docs floating about...

[HammerSet]

Light bulbs are turning on...RR may have protected the Customers, but it seems like a battle between partners, but just my opinion from what I interpret, from the various docs floating about...

battle vs partner, isn't it when they install the security chip ?

near that time ?

about Vaughn, mispelled ?


[8] The Defendant, Mr. Ramkissoon, resides in Ontario and carries on a business known as the “Digital Store” of the Defendant Digital Store Inc., an Ontario corporation, in respect of which he is the directing mind.

The Digital Store has business premises at 34 Futurity Gate, Unit #7,Vaughan, Ontario. Mr

[DaddyOof4]

Here is a little more on this case. I find request number 9 & 10 of interest.

c/p

D*sh Network's Motion to Compel Scheibe
By A_Z_A - January 27, 2011
Documents (Doc 78) were filed and entered today, January 27, 2011. These documents are asking the court to compel Warren Scheibe to provide the following information:


D*sh Network's Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Interrogatory No. 12 and Requests for Production Nos. 9 and 10

Interrogatory No. 12

Request Regarding Defendant's Relationship With Certain Individuals and Companies


Identify and describe defendant's current and previous relationship with the following persons and entities associated with NFusion:

Kevin Clifton
Mamertine, Inc.
Michael Cho
Jason Cho
Eric Bell
Mauri O'Brodo
Kevin Tromp
David Smith
Robert Hibbert
Hung Quach
Forward Motion, Inc.
Forward Motion Products, L.L.C.
Ravin Ramkissoon
Digital Store
including any and all payments exchanged between defendant and such persons or entities.

Scheibe says he would agree to furnish information in regards to the above-mentioned people and entities, if each were to be made into 14 seperate interrogatories, instead of packaged as one, as D*SH Network requests.



Requests Reguarding Purchasers of Defendant's NFusion Receivers and 8PSK Boards

D*sh Network claims that Scheibe's objections are without any merit.

D*sh Network's stance is:
The customer's of defendant's NFusion receivers and 8PSK boards are potential fact witnesses. Their identity is likely to lead to evidence regarding the primary use of defendant's NFusion receivers and 8PSK boards. Moreover, the identity of customers of defendant's product is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to defendant's own conduct in the operation of his business.As set forth in D*SH Network's pending application for preliminary injunction, multiple dealers have already come forward with evidence supporting D*SH Network's claims against defendant.

D*sh Network cited the Panarex and Viewtech cases in regards to "customer lists."


Requests for Production No. 9

Documents sufficient to identify each person that purchased or otherwise acquired an NFusion receiver from defendant during the period of January 1, 2006 to present date, including, but not limited to, documents that identify each person's name, address, phone number and email address, as well as the purchase date, purchase price, purchase quantity, and model number for each NFusion receiver.


Requests for Production No. 10

Documents sufficient to identify each person that purchased or otherwise acquired an 8PSK board from defendant during the period of January 1, 2006 to present date, including, but not limited to, documents that identify each person's name, address, phone number and email address, as well as the purchase date, purchase price, purchase quantity, and model number for each 8PSK board.



Attachment 78-2 is entitled: Exhibit 1 - Order Establishing Initial Case Schedule

[fifties]

D*sh Network cited the Panarex and Viewtech cases in regards to "customer lists."



The upside is that that bodes well for end users of their service, given that the court specifically forbade DN from using discovery of Viewtech customers to then pursue legal action against them specifically.

[patch]

Here is a little more on this case. I find request number 9 & 10 of interest.

c/p

D*sh Network's Motion to Compel Scheibe
By A_Z_A - January 27, 2011


Scheibe says he would agree to furnish information in regards to the above-mentioned people and entities, if each were to be made into 14 seperate interrogatories, instead of packaged as one, as D*SH Network requests.


A bit of mis-dirrection in that C/P me thinks.
AZA seems to have taken the actual doc's wording out of context. The docs posted is what we should be reading and not what AZA wants us to read in that C/P

The arguement seems to be that the courts are bundling up at least 14 subcases into one interagggatory which if seperate and added to the others then it would exceed the 20 interagggatory limit allowed.

C/p's of these docs are no good. They put the poster's perspective in view and not neccassarly what the doc actually says.
Maybe my interpetation is wrong, but that's why the docs should be read and we should not be relying on what AZA or whoever it may be commenting with the selective info posted.

Read the docs folks. What do they say to you?

[HammerSet]

A_Z_A cannot post his opinion or vue to a subject ???

please explain ...

[dishuser]

A_Z_A cannot post his opinion or vue to a subject ???

please explain ...

she didn't post her opinion here
someone else did

[Night Prowler]

A_Z_A cannot post his opinion or vue to a subject ???

please explain ...

a mod that's here can't either?

your turn.......

[Just_angel]

:noidea::noidea::noidea: but i'm sure some others will chime in here

[Just_angel]

what i do see is she added her name again to court documents

kinda makes me wonder

[HammerSet]

i'll say same as dishuser

+ the docs are not in the original post of A_Z_A

actually A_Z_A post no more pdf

don't try to find the c/p in those old docs, you will search to the end of time ...

your turn !

[HammerSet]

what i do see is she added her name again to court documents

kinda makes me wonder

you are totally wrong about A_Z_A

[Just_angel]

i'll say same as dishuser

+ the docs are not in the original post of A_Z_A

actually A_Z_A post no more pdf

don't try to find the c/p in those old docs, you will search to the end of time ...

your turn !



what she posts no more? when why is her name at the bottom of each document?

[Just_angel]

you are totally wrong about A_Z_A

nothing you or anyone says will change my mind on her

[patch]

i'll say same as dishuser

+ the docs are not in the original post of A_Z_A

actually A_Z_A post no more pdf

don't try to find the c/p in those old docs, you will search to the end of time ...

your turn !
She did C/P (or re-type) "some" choice parts of the Doc, yes.
The part about the Shilbe fella stating he would rat if the court would drop so many of the interagggatory cases was taken out of context. It looks to me like Shelb's lawyer is tryin' to get some of this stuff thrown out. But that's just my version... and that's okay cause I didn't make a statement that was supposed to be direct quotes and outcomes of the case while I was posting the docs on the same posting...
She has changed the content of the doc in doing that ( not the actual content but you should get my meaning).

Get it??


Lots of people will see her views of what the doc actually says and wouldn't even to bother to open the .PDF file to see for themselves. So, yeah posting her "opinion" on the same posting of the Doc itself is most mis-leading.

And yes, it did say --> "By A_Z_A - January 27, 2011"

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

She did C/P (or re-type) "some" choice parts of the Doc, yes.
The part about the Shilbe fella stating he would rat if the court would drop so many of the interagggatory cases was taken out of context. It looks to me like Shelb's lawyer is tryin' to get some of this stuff thrown out. But that's just my version... and that's okay cause I didn't make a statement that was supposed to be direct quotes and outcomes of the case while I was posting the docs on the same posting...
She has changed the content of the doc in doing that ( not the actual content but you should get my meaning).

Get it??


Lots of people will see her views of what the doc actually says and wouldn't even to bother to open the .PDF file to see for themselves. So, yeah posting her "opinion" on the same posting of the Doc itself is most mis-leading.

And yes, it did say --> "By A_Z_A - January 27, 2011"


I often post docs and give my opinion on what I read but everyone should read docs for themselves to form their own view. For me its part of the discussion. As far as asking for 14 separent responses to each individual versus responding with one, if the court sees it the defendant's way then it would go over the limit for the plaintiff. It then would result in less information being provided by the defendant. Seems like a good arguement to try.

The plaintiff is seeking to compell the defendant. Probably because of previous rulings the lawyer for the defendant sees that the defendant would be ordered to be compelled to give the information so therefore is trying a different tactic to try to foil all the compelling on those 14 people. Now as far as calling the defendant a rat for saying he will comply with 14 independent responses which would be cut down if the court rules in the defendant's favor people need to ask themselves if complying with a court order translates into being labelled a rat. Myself I don't see it that way. I see that label being applied if one volunteers information on persons to better themselves at the expense of others. Some say if it was them they would not comply but I think its a bit too easy to say that versus actually being in court with a lawyer. You might find yourself doing what you said you would not do. How far to people expect a dealer to go in court when facing the music. Disobey a court order and face contempt of court with possible consequences. It surely won't help your case with the court if you disobey an order it gives.Theres always a risk and everyone has to know that.



GS2

[fifties]

How far to people expect a dealer to go in court when facing the music. Disobey a court order and face contempt of court with possible consequences. It surely won't help your case with the court if you disobey an order it gives.Theres always a risk and everyone has to know that.



GS2
Didn't one of your countrymen recently thumb his nose at two AP orders, rather than roll over?

[patch]

I often post docs and give my opinion on what I read but everyone should read docs for themselves to form their own view. For me its part of the discussion. As far as asking for 14 separent responses to each individual versus responding with one, if the court sees it the defendant's way then it would go over the limit for the plaintiff. It then would result in less information being provided by the defendant. Seems like a good arguement to try.

The plaintiff is seeking to compell the defendant. Probably because of previous rulings the lawyer for the defendant sees that the defendant would be ordered to be compelled to give the information so therefore is trying a different tactic to try to foil all the compelling on those 14 people. Now as far as calling the defendant a rat for saying he will comply with 14 independent responses which would be cut down if the court rules in the defendant's favor people need to ask themselves if complying with a court order translates into being labelled a rat. Myself I don't see it that way. I see that label being applied if one volunteers information on persons to better themselves at the expense of others. Some say if it was them they would not comply but I think its a bit too easy to say that versus actually being in court with a lawyer. You might find yourself doing what you said you would not do. How far to people expect a dealer to go in court when facing the music. Disobey a court order and face contempt of court with possible consequences. It surely won't help your case with the court if you disobey an order it gives.Theres always a risk and everyone has to know that.



GS2
give my opinion on what I read but everyone should read docs for themselves
That's right but do not use "selective quotes" from the doc to form a different meaning of what the doc actually says.
And that's all that was in that C/P'd post.
Selective quotes and no direct words from the poster, just quotes from the docs. That makes it NOT an opinion but a misleading representation of the doc's info.
Which is also in a sort, called "fear mongering"

[JCO]

give my opinion on what I read but everyone should read docs for themselves
That's right but do not use "selective quotes" from the doc to form a different meaning of what the doc actually says.
And that's all that was in that C/P'd post.
Selective quotes and no direct words from the poster, just quotes from the docs. That makes it NOT an opinion but a misleading representation of the doc's info.
Which is also in a sort, called "fear mongering"

Who knows what else was edited in those docs.. MAybe its not just the adon of the AZA nic..LOL

[Hannibalector]

i thought you all closed the very same discussion in this thread yet the same contents and questioning are here again , after closing the thread the last time, if you dont trust the contents of the posts from A_Z_A then go get your own pacer account and cross refference it to what A_Z_A has posted (read the contents of the court documents and stop reading the opinion if it bothers you)

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Didn't one of your countrymen recently thumb his nose at two AP orders, rather than roll over?


As far as I know a few have but does that mean you expect everyone should do that or they are a rat. ? I think when some people decide not to obey the court order they do so because otherwise they would be handing over evidence that will be used against them that would confirm the plaintiff's complaint against them.


GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

give my opinion on what I read but everyone should read docs for themselves
That's right but do not use "selective quotes" from the doc to form a different meaning of what the doc actually says.
And that's all that was in that C/P'd post.
Selective quotes and no direct words from the poster, just quotes from the docs. That makes it NOT an opinion but a misleading representation of the doc's info.
Which is also in a sort, called "fear mongering"


What I usually do is post the doc and give my opinion on what I read. Sometimes I will take a direct quote from the doc. Its more of a generalisation of my opinion on what I read.


GS2

[fifties]

Quote Originally Posted by fifties
Didn't one of your countrymen recently thumb his nose at two AP orders, rather than roll over?

As far as I know a few have but does that mean you expect everyone should do that or they are a rat. ? I think when some people decide not to obey the court order they do so because otherwise they would be handing over evidence that will be used against them that would confirm the plaintiff's complaint against them.


GS2
You asked how far ppl expected a dealer to go, when facing court, and I pointed out that there are some with a backbone.

Now whether that's because "rolling" will further incriminate them, they feel a sense of loyalty to their customers, or whatever the reason, the point is that not all will roll, so any expectation that they will is an equally unsound judgment.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

You asked how far ppl expected a dealer to go, when facing court, and I pointed out that there are some with a backbone.

Now whether that's because "rolling" will further incriminate them, they feel a sense of loyalty to their customers, or whatever the reason, the point is that not all will roll, so any expectation that they will is an equally unsound judgment.


What I was asking is how far people expected a dealer to go not how far a dealer has gone. I was interested in finding out if people thought if someone complied with a court order whether that translated into rolling and should be labelled a rat.

Now as far as ones that were found in contempt of court for not complying there were three. The first was Broudreau who refused to hand over databases. I saw that as trying to protect himself and others plus a revolt against the Anton Pillar & the law on principle. His was the one I saw as the most deserving of being labelled backbone. The second was Rodgers. I saw his refusal as more to not further incriminate himself since his defense was that he was not Tomico and the evidence they were seeking could be evidence that could show he was Tomico. The third was Ramkissoon and I saw that as more not to further incriminate himself with trying to prevent evidence that could have shown he was Superstar with links to sites and posting. It now appears he has rolled which supplying information on others to better himself. I see that as deserving of a label of rat.

As far as expectation I think its better to take a more cautious line as to whether someone will comply with an order or not if your concerned about it.



GS2

[fifties]

What I was asking is how far people expected a dealer to go not how far a dealer has gone. I was interested in finding out if people thought if someone complied with a court order whether that translated into rolling and should be labelled a rat.


GS2
One can only do an educated guess on how they would react in the future, by using similar history as a basis.

Of your three previous examples, it appears that two, or 66-2/3% of the cases would indicate a sheltering of their customers, either purposely or as simply a collateral benefit. I would guess that's an optimistic figure to maintain, however.

AFA the "rat" tag, if a dealer jeopardizes his customer base to save his own skin, instead of taking it like a man, since he profited from them, the label is deserving, IMO.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

One can only do an educated guess on how they would react in the future, by using similar history as a basis.

Of your three previous examples, it appears that two, or 66-2/3% of the cases would indicate a sheltering of their customers, either purposely or as simply a collateral benefit. I would guess that's an optimistic figure to maintain, however.

AFA the "rat" tag, if a dealer jeopardizes his customer base to save his own skin, instead of taking it like a man, since he profited from them, the label is deserving, IMO.



So are you saying that a dealer should disobey a court order if it might bring exposure to customers as otherwise the rat label is deserving. I agree if its done to save your skin with testifying against others as deserving but not with complying with a court order. I think dealers should try to fight court orders and should be prepared to spend money with lawyer fees but in reality I don't think that will happen too much unless the business is a going concern at the time and it pays to pay a lawyer to continue doing business.



GS2

[fifties]

So are you saying that a dealer should disobey a court order if it might bring exposure to customers as otherwise the rat label is deserving. I agree if its done to save your skin with testifying against others as deserving but not with complying with a court order. I think dealers should try to fight court orders and should be prepared to spend money with lawyer fees but in reality I don't think that will happen too much unless the business is a going concern at the time and it pays to pay a lawyer to continue doing business.



GS2
The short answer is perhaps yes, although that would be the ideal, and not reality for the most part.

The dealer made bank on his customers, so since he gained, he should be prepared to shelter them, even if his eventual loss far exceeds the original profit.

On the other hand, the customers knew that they were engaged in illegalities, and a risk on their part would logically have to be assumed.

I said perhaps yes, because this is not entirely black and white, obviously.

The most realistic scenario would be for him to legally dodge providing evidence in order to shield both himself, and his customers.

[hondoharry]

Dealers and PS providers should not keep any evidence around that could incriminate a customer. Why they do I'll never understand.

[mike1840]

Dealers and PS providers should not keep any evidence around that could incriminate a customer. Why they do I'll never understand.

Because when they get caught they use them as a bargaining tool

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Dealers and PS providers should not keep any evidence around that could incriminate a customer. Why they do I'll never understand.


It is really hard to run a business without records. For example if somebody bought a product and you destroy the invoice and the shipping record and then the customer wants to return the item for refund or exchange or repair how are you suppose to verify it came from that person. In any case people should not buy into the catch line from someone that they destroy records They should assume they exist and try to eliminate a paper trail.


GS2

[fifties]

Quote Originally Posted by hondoharry
Dealers and PS providers should not keep any evidence around that could incriminate a customer. Why they do I'll never understand.
Because when they get caught they use them as a bargaining tool
It's that type of mindset that would ID someone as a rat with a capital "R".

Unfortunately, when initially doing biz with a dealer, you have no way of knowing how his his character will react when under fire.

The safest way has always been, in person, with cash, no personal information given.

[lemming]

Alas anybody still believe techno did not roll? lmao

9304

[lemming]

Funny thing is, all the redacted whistleblower declarations name the other whistleblowers. Lol like ravin or SS. Not hard to figure out who they are. Speaking of techno, he been busy with his declarations. They don't even redact his name in echo motion for summary judgement against Kwak. Hell they stopped redacting all the CIs names in that case. Trinity, Fraud, Fuss, Techno, TDG, satscams, etc. Seriously funny. All these self proclaimed celebraties ratting on each other. Friggin FTA trash, chasing the almighty buck ruined the true hobby.

[fifties]

Friggin FTA trash, chasing the almighty buck ruined the true hobby.
Noooo...Think?

Actually, the blame can be administered right on down the food chain. All these smaller operators who were selling tricked boxes at their workplace, to friends, relatives, etc, and then charging to re-flash whenever an ECM hit the stream.
How many of the estimated two to four million boxes do you think were sold and serviced by this tier of middlemen?

[dishuser]

Noooo...Think?

Actually, the blame can be administered right on down the food chain. All these smaller operators who were selling tricked boxes at their workplace, to friends, relatives, etc, and then charging to re-flash whenever an ECM hit the stream.
How many of the estimated two to four million boxes do you think were sold and serviced by this tier of middlemen?

a small percentage

[fifties]

a small percentage

I would debate that, given the quantity of posts when we were doing stand-alone, that were complaining about their customers being down. And that really began at Tiki, a good 6 years ago or so, when it was just Pansat and Fortec boxes primarily.

[dishuser]

I would debate that, given the quantity of posts when we were doing stand-alone, that were complaining about their customers being down. And that really began at Tiki, a good 6 years ago or so, when it was just Pansat and Fortec boxes primarily.

so a million were complaining?

[fifties]

so a million were complaining?

They used to say that one letter to a congressman represented 50 more thinking the same way, and 50 letters on the same subject was a landslide. Given that form of reasoning, when we would see even five or 10 dealers complaining, we knew that there were quite a few more with the same agenda, but aware that bin begging wasn't appreciated.
I wouldn't venture a guess as to how many boxes in the field were the result of smaller entrepenuers, and prolly not near a million, but it's a matter of adding up all the pieces that made the whole the size that it was.
We all know that if there had been no FTA boxes, and the piracy situation was limited to maybe even 100,000 card bangers, DN and Bev might not have bothered even going to Nagra 2.

[lemming]

They used to say that one letter to a congressman represented 50 more thinking the same way, and 50 letters on the same subject was a landslide. Given that form of reasoning, when we would see even five or 10 dealers complaining, we knew that there were quite a few more with the same agenda, but aware that bin begging wasn't appreciated.
I wouldn't venture a guess as to how many boxes in the field were the result of smaller entrepenuers, and prolly not near a million, but it's a matter of adding up all the pieces that made the whole the size that it was.
We all know that if there had been no FTA boxes, and the piracy situation was limited to maybe even 100,000 card bangers, DN and Bev might not have bothered even going to Nagra 2.

If we go back and look at the discovery in the current and settled cases, we are talking several million fta units sold. DEI has calculated the total downloads for bins for brand specific STB's. TDG alone was blamed on how many down loads? Throw Panarex, Freetech, Buzz, Sonysat, Sonicview, nFusion, Limesat, etc. in. Manufactures that made it so the common file monkey could load a bin and claim it was "testing". Who would have ever thought a corporation the size of the provider would turn the other way. House of cards. Kwak posting pictures of himself with a mountain of cash. Jer running around setting the traps. Fraud on and off the wagon playing PI. Trinity selling the stolen Map57 algo for 300k. You know, you an't make this stuff up. Should have been a sit com.

[JCO]

Funny thing is, all the redacted whistleblower declarations name the other whistleblowers. Lol like ravin or SS. Not hard to figure out who they are. Speaking of techno, he been busy with his declarations. They don't even redact his name in echo motion for summary judgement against Kwak. Hell they stopped redacting all the CIs names in that case. Trinity, Fraud, Fuss, Techno, TDG, satscams, etc. Seriously funny. All these self proclaimed celebraties ratting on each other. Friggin FTA trash, chasing the almighty buck ruined the true hobby.

LOL it sounds like they want to out stool each other to reduce their own sentenses..
In a situation like this they would sell out their own mothers and rent out their sisters..
Who knows they may even start ratting on other manufacturers and distributors.. I wouldnt put it past them..

[1boxman]

The whole funny thing is ...as the ng2 was leaked ...and the talk was there competitor ..As He stood back and laughed as all the cut throats hanging themselves .

They history repeats its self...Will look at the paid iks ....as the reselling and hacking of each other goes on . and the struggle for power begins .

The only one that has eluded time.. is Mili

[space*ranger]

And Mil got smart. He got out of it for the most part.

Claimed his forums crashed and he was only reselling subs. Bull, he pulled the forums down and trashed them then went to Europe for a month. Sounds like he was worried someone was coming to his door and he burned anything that might lead to him

SR

[1boxman]

And Mil got smart. He got out of it for the most part.

Claimed his forums crashed and he was only reselling subs. Bull, he pulled the forums down and trashed them then went to Europe for a month. Sounds like he was worried someone was coming to his door and he burned anything that might lead to him

SR

He is not out..still in ..driving a new yellow corvette

[dishuser]

And Mil got smart. He got out of it for the most part.

Claimed his forums crashed and he was only reselling subs. Bull, he pulled the forums down and trashed them then went to Europe for a month. Sounds like he was worried someone was coming to his door and he burned anything that might lead to him

SR

I didn't know toronto was in europe

[JCO]

I didn't know toronto was in europe

Well I have seen 2 montreal's in europe there may be a toronto there too..LOL

[space*ranger]

He is not out..still in ..driving a new yellow corvette

he is doing more than reselling service now ? Is he using a different site or did he get back into other items.

As for Europe....that was his story when his forum crashed a year+ ago around the time Slingers were offically dead

SR

[fifties]

If we go back and look at the discovery in the current and settled cases, we are talking several million fta units sold. DEI has calculated the total downloads for bins for brand specific STB's. TDG alone was blamed on how many down loads? Throw Panarex, Freetech, Buzz, Sonysat, Sonicview, nFusion, Limesat, etc. in. Manufactures that made it so the common file monkey could load a bin and claim it was "testing".
I was told that VS had sold two million units during their tenure in the community. It has been estimated that the rest of the manufacturers combined sold another million to two million, so three to four million is a fair assumption, and comprises about 25% of DN's sub base.

I don't think anyone could claim with a straight face that they were "testing", once it got refined down to D/L a file onto a memory stick and plugging it into their STB.



The only one that has eluded time.. is Mili
Now there's a real piece of work. He actively had his Slinger being promoted on the fake Card Coders site right up to the day they pulled the plug on the server, rendering all investments in the device worthless.
For a time he was a site sponsor at DSS Testor, which gave him leave to backhand anyone posting negatively about either him or his "products", including his Dave card scheme, from some years back.