NEW lawsuit against NDS and Bell ExpressVu

[Dean_M_Love]

As I indicated previously, there is now a new lawsuit against NDS and Bell ExpressVu for violating the settlement which they agreed to be bound by, and attempted to have me jailed for contempt of court, which was completely dismissed with solicitor client costs in my favour. Now we are seeking damages pursuant to the minutes of settlement, to the tune of $100,000 per defendant. The details (not much at this point) can be found at www.jus.gov.mb.ca :

(CI02-01-30502 LOVE, DEAN VS NEWS DATACOM LTD.)

DE001 NEWS DATACOM LTD,
DE002 NDS LIMITED,
DE003 NDS AMERICAS INC,
DE004 BELL EXPRESSVU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
PL001 LOVE, DEAN


This claim really is a no-brainer, simply breach of contract, they agreed not to do certain things, but did them anyways contrary to that agreement, and they really have no defense, other than McKenzie's argument that they only did it because I filed other claims against them. Not really a very good defense.

"Your Honour, he filed other claims against us that we didn't like, so rather than challenge those claims within those actions, we chose to violate our previous agreement dismissing the NDS/Bell action, and tried to put him in Jail within that action so that we had a bargaining chip in order to get him to withdraw those claims. Now it has backfired on us and that was dismissed, but Gee, do we really have to be bound juse because we signed an agreement?"

[InRBigness]

Good for you Dean. Go get em.

[Bowen13]

Hope you nail their sorry asses to the wall.

Although the figure should be more like 10,000,000.

If the shoe where on the other foot they would probably be asking for 100,000,000.

They come up with figures out of this world, why shouldn't we?

Best of luck, the 100,000 will look good in your pocket and the loss will surely sting them. Plus, it may open up a whole new can of worms against them and their procedures.

[Bowen13]

Whoops read that wrong.

The 1/2M will look even better in your pocket:D

[Dean_M_Love]

....yes, plus fees of course :)

[gunsmoke2]

I agree sue for more. They sue for 100 million and 45 million on a bs lawsuit against incredible. ;)



Or do you have to stick to past agreement ?



GS2

[Dean_M_Love]

well, i s'pose given that they tried to put me in jail, and they acknowledged in their own submissions that they knew they had no right to do so, but only did so because I filed other claims, there may be the potential for 'punitive damages'...of course there really is no relief in a civil action worse than jail...as in most lawsuits, the door stays open for "further relief as plaintiffs counsel may advise and the Court finds just..."

[Dean_M_Love]

IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
WINNIPEG CENTRE FILE CI 02-01-30502

BETWEEN: DEAN LOVE plaintiff,

AND

NEWS DATACOM LTD., NDS LIMITED, NDS AMERICAS INC.
and BELL EXPRESSVU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP defendants.




STATEMENT OF CLAIM

TO THE DEFENDANTS:

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the Plaintiff. The claim against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a Manitoba lawyer acting for you must prepare a Statement of Defense in Form 18A prescribed by the Queen's Bench Rules, serve it on the Plaintiff's lawyer or where the Plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the Plaintiff, and file it in this Court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this Statement of Claim is served on you, if you are served in Manitoba.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your Statement of Defense is FORTY DAYS. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is SIXTY DAYS.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.

IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, and $300.00 for costs, within the time for serving and filing your Statement of Defense, you may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the Court. If you believe the amount claims for costs is excessive, you may pay the Plaintiff's claim and $300.00 for costs and have the costs assess by the Court.

Date: Nov. 6 2002 Issued by: D. Tack Deputy Registrar Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba

TO: News Datacom Ltd.
c/o NDS Americas
3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660

AND TO: NDS Limited
c/o NDS Americas Inc.
3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660

AND TO: NDS Americas Inc.
3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660

AND TO: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership
115 Scarsdale Road
North York, Ontario

CLAIM

1. The plaintiff claims from the defendants, jointly and severally:

a) damages to be assessed against each defendant in an amount contemplated by Minutes of Settlement as hereinafter described;

b) costs on a solicitor and client basis; and

c) Such further relief as the nature of the this action may require and this Honourable Court may permit.

2. The plaintiff is a businessman who resides in the Town of Lockport, in the Province of Manitoba.

3. The defendants News Datacom Ltd. and NDS Limited are British corporations who maintain their head office in England. The defendant NDS Americas Incorporated is a U.S. corporation which conducts business from its head office in Newport Beach, California and is the North American representative of News Datacom Ltd. and NDS Limited. Hereinafter, the defendants described in the paragraph shall be referred to as "NDS".

4. The defendant Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership ("ExpressVu") is a limited partnership constituted pursuant to The Limited Partnership Act, R.S.O. 1990 C.L. 16 and amendments thereto. ExpressVu's main operational office is located in the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario and the company carries on business in the Province of Manitoba and elsewhere throughout Canada.

5. On October 24, 2000, NDS and ExpresVu commenced an action in the Honourable Court against the plaintiff and others in Suit No. CI 00-01-20467 (the "NDS Action"). Among other things, the NDS action sought an Anton Pillar Order and in interim, interlocutory and permanent injunction enjoining the plaintiff and others from directly or indirectly manufacturing, importing, exporting, distributing, leasing, selling, offering for sale, installing, modifying, operating or possessing equipment, devices, software or knowhow of any kind whatsoever (or any component thereof) that is or are designed to be used or can be modified to be used to directly or indirectly decode encrypted subscription programming signals in circumstances where the distributor or owner of the signals is or are deprived of subscription fees.

6. On or about October 30,2000, the defendants brought a motion within the NDS Action to find the plaintiff in contempt of court for violating a without notice order issued in that action on October 24, 2000 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Darichuk (the "2000 Contempt Motion"). The defendants did not proceed with this motion.

7. On November 8, 2000, the NDS Action was settled pursuant to minutes of settlement (the "Minutes of Settlement"), most of the terms of which are confidential.

8. On November 17, 2000, pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement the entire NDS Action including the 2000 Contempt Motion was dismissed as against the plaintiff and others pursuant to a consent judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Darichuk (the "Consent Judgment"). Some of the terms of the Minutes of Settlement were embodied in the Consent Judgment and therefore those terms are no longer confidential. One such term is Paragraph 5 of the Minutes of Settlement wherein the defendants agreed that the NDS Action was to be dismissed as against the plaintiff and others without costs. The effect of this term of the Minutes of Settlement restricted the defendants from reinstituting the NDS Action or any motion pending when the Minutes of Settlement were executed, including the 2000 Contempt Motion.

9. In brach of the Minutes of Settlement the defendants brought a further motion within the NDS Action, returnable November 14, 2001, wherein they sought directions as to the conduct of a hearing to determine the contempt of Dean Love for violating the without notice order of October 24, 2000 (the "2001 Contempt Motion"). The allegations of contempt contained in this notice of motion were the exact same allegations of contempt that were alleged in the 2000 Contempt Motion.

10. The defendants sought to proceed with the 2001 Contempt Motion. A brief was filed and on May 9, 2002, Associate Chief Justice Oliphant was urged by the defendants to hear the 2001 Contempt Motion and declare that a prima face case for a finding of contempt had been established and that the plaintiff should show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.

11. On May 9, 2002, Associate Chief Justice Oliphant dismissed, with solicitor and client costs, the 2001 Contempt Motion stating that the 2001 Contempt Motion was in fact the same motion as the 2000 Contempt Motion which had been dismissed as a consequence of the Minutes of Settlement and the Consent Judgment. The learned Associate Chief Justice further stated that to proceed with the 2001 Contempt Motion would be an abuse of process of the Court.

12. After the 2001 Contempt Motion was dismissed the defendants made written submissions to Associate Chief Justice Oliphant regarding costs. In these written submissions, the defendants acknowledge that at all times they supported the position that the Minutes of Settlement and Consent Judgment "obviated all claims for contempt for actions that preceded these two documents". The written submissions of the defendants further indicated that the defendants believed there was no proper basis to bring the 2001 Contempt Motion but they did so in order to respond to allegations of contempt made against them in other proceedings involving the plaintiff.

13. As a consequence of the foregoing breach, the plaintiff seeks damages from each of the defendants in an amount contemplated by the Minutes of Settlement.

14. It is respectfully submitted that the open acknowledgement of the defendants' intentional abuse of the court process warrants that solicitor and client costs be awarded in this action.

16. The plaintiff therefore seeks the relief referred to in paragraph 1 hereof.

November 6, 2002 DUBOFF EDWARDS HAIGHT AND SHACHTER
Barristers and Solicitors

[RiseStar]

With all these pending claims against mackenzie, I certainly would not want to be the one paying his insurance premiums

[HotRodTodd]

Good for you Dean, after all the crap that they put you through hopefully they will have it fall back on them. Good Luck

[Salty Jizm]

Thanks for posting that Dean! Please post anything that gets filed and is not confidental! Keep us up to date!

[Dean_M_Love]

...Being the COWARD that he is McKenzie has declined to accept service of this claim and other documents relating to the Third Party Claim against him and his clients, by FAX, even though he is the solicitor of record for both Bell ExpressVu and NDS on numerous other matters...so we now have a process server hand serving the documents to the defendants personally. Which will only add to the costs I incur that we have asked to be awarded on a solicitor client basis, due to the abusive nature of McKenzie's failed motion, and his open admittance of knowingly abusing the Courts process without regard.

There are also some other surprises in the works for Mr. McKenzie, which I won't get into at this time, as it is well known that he frequents these forums. I will post about them once they have begun, and he is aware of them, and it will be too late for him to manouvre around them.

[gunsmoke2]

ExpressVu took McKenzie off the Charter Challenge this past week and he is replaced by a new lawyer.



GS2

[Dean_M_Love]

hehheh couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.....

I wonder if ExpressVu will remove him from acting here in Manitoba where he has created a legal nightmare for them with his frivolous motions and numerous breaches of settlement....

I have to wonder if this has something to do with his total silence and non-response to numerous letters from my attorneys in the last several weeks....

[gunsmoke2]

McKenzie was filling motion after motion and wanted to cross examine so many people. He was being Mr stall. Apparently the lawyer who replace him wasn't to keen on McKenzies approach. They think it will move much quicker now.



GS2

[Dean_M_Love]

yes, McKenzie has a style not too many other lawyers would adopt, and while it may be beneficial in terms of financial damage to the other side, what really happens is the Judge starts to wonder what the hell the whole point is, and any credibility he is afforded at the outset is quickly lost, so any merit to their claims goes out the window. Even when you have a winning case, pissing off the judge will result in a loss. (not saying they have a winning case, just saying he seriously lessens his odds with his underhanded tactics)

This can only be a positive move for the Charter case, let it be tried on the merits, not on "who's got more money to stall longer"

Damn those pesky charter issues, huh Bill?

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by Dean_M_Love

There are also some other surprises in the works for Mr. McKenzie, which I won't get into at this time, as it is well known that he frequents these forums. I will post about them once they have begun, and he is aware of them, and it will be too late for him to manouvre around them.

I love it when you do this!!! Usually, this kind of statement results in the reader rolling their eyes and saying "more bull----".

But when you, TTRK and GS make this kind of statement, EVERYBODY knows there is going to be mortar rounds going in his direction.

[Dean_M_Love]

Originally posted by Salty Jizm
I love it when you do this!!! Usually, this kind of statement results in the reader rolling their eyes and saying "more bull----".

But when you, TTRK and GS make this kind of statement, EVERYBODY knows there is going to be mortar rounds going in his direction.

...actually I am hoping it will be more like a chemical weapon tipped scud missile.... :)

[LemonDrop]

Good for you Dean! Hope your team blows them apart! ....maybe you'll bankrupt them and they'll go out of biz.;) :D

[Dean_M_Love]

..well well well Billy, you've been a naughty boy haven't you!!!!


Just got a call from my lawyer....

After getting our new lawsuit served on NDS and Bell ExpressVu by a process server, we got a BIG surprise...

A local lawyer contacted my attorney and advised him that HE is now representing Bell ExpressVu, and all he knew was that this was a "settlement that fell apart"...and knew NOTHING about McKenzies numerous motions, including the one that was dismissed as an Abuse of Process. Which seems to indicate McKenzie brought motions on behalf of his client ExpressVu WITHOUT EVEN GETTING INSTRUCTIONS FROM THEM.

He has now been REMOVED from this case, but that doesn't save him from the fact that he is also a DEFENDANT in claims against him and his firm. Acting malicously WITHOUT instructions from his client will not serve him too well as a defense.

Nor will the Law Society of Upper Canada take it too well either, and I fully intend to file more complaints regarding his conduct in this matter once the dust settles.

As well, since ExpressVu AND NDS are now Defendants in THIS new claim (and in fact ALL of the claims I have filed against them) only as a result of McKenzie's actions in filing this Abusive motion in circumstances where he knew he should not, HE could also get sued by NDS and ExpressVu for causing liability to THEM.


One has to wonder how long it will take NDS to wake up and smell the coffee as to what their agent is causing on their behalf, and decide to cut their losses as well, and come to the table to negotiate some sort of settlement before they get whacked for huge costs and damages, along with McKenzie. Not to mention what the outcome is going to be if any of the allegations of Piracy going on in the USA are proven true. Unclean hands ring a bell Johnny boy?

Sounds like the guy who "...hit the final home run to win the World Series..." has just STRUCK out big time.

More to come on this developing story as it unfolds. This is still VERY new.

[gunsmoke2]

Well that along with the Charter Challenge is confirming more and more that Wild Bill got dismissed by BullExpressPuke ;)


What a great idea McKenzie passes the buck and tells the other lawyer just say you know nothing. :)



GS2

[Dean_M_Love]

...no, from what I understand, the new lawyer hasn't even talked to McKenzie, only to ExpressVu, and they had NO IDEA of what McKenzie has been up to....

...there is no question Kenneth is now on the ropes, and it will only take 1 or 2 more shots to knock him out....


I'm gonna knock you out, Momma says knock you out
- LL Cool J - 199x

[dgr81]

Originally posted by Dean_M_Love
I'm gonna knock you out, Momma says knock you out
- LL Cool J - 199x 1990 :D

[gunsmoke2]

In Toronto as I understood the file went from McKenzie to the new lawyer and I would think that ExpressVu is aware. Other the other hand you can never tell with McKenzie.



GS2

[Dean_M_Love]

...well what happened here is that after the original settlement, when it was breached by McKenzie filing a new lawsuit on behalf of Nagracard, using evidence that was only learned in the Anton Pillar, which the settlement agreement says they will not disclose to ANYONE, then I filed the third party claim against NDS ExpressVU McKenzie and Donald Best. Once McKenzie got served with the lawsuit, he immediately started a barrage of "scorched earth litigation" involving very serious accusations against my lawyer, in order to try to get him removed as my counsel, the motion against me to have me put in jail for contempt of court, and numerous other things.

It is becoming apparent that ExpressVu was NOT told by McKenzie of this scorched earth litigation, as their new attorney knew nothing of it, and was quite frankly, shocked at what was going on.

So rather than deal with lawsuit against him the way he should (like filing a defense etc.) he instead chose to instigate this scorched earth litigation in an attempt to have me withdraw the new claims. He repeatedly offered to end the "scorched earth" BS so long as we withdrew our claims. We refused everytime, and stood our ground.

Then the Judge finally started to see through him, and dismissed the contempt motion against me where he tried to put me in jail.

At this point, he has lost ALL of his leverage, and given that his "other" clients are now accused of being the World's Largest Pirate Organization, it should be fun to see their employee accusing my lawyer of lying to the court. We are supposed to be cross-examining someone from NDS but mysteriously McKenzie has continued to stall that cross examination. It should prove quite interesting when we bring up the multiple Billion dollar lawsuits pending against them, Grand Jury subpeonas etc. etc. And this guy reports to John Norris, just like Chris Tarnovsky, the Echostar hacker.

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by Dean_M_Love

So rather than deal with lawsuit against him the way he should (like filing a defense etc.) he instead chose to instigate this scorched earth litigation in an attempt to have me withdraw the new claims. He repeatedly offered to end the "scorched earth" BS so long as we withdrew our claims. We refused everytime, and stood our ground.


I think we are going to see a pattern develop over the next year. I think we will see a lot of 'entities' that 'doubled down' when the heat got turned up.

And, it is only fitting that McKenzie is the first to double down and lose the hand. In 6 months we will get a peak at the hand that NDS is holding. They doubled down and we have a good hunch where that is going. And there are others. It is possible that during formal discovery we are going to get some visibility into DTV's and Tarnovsky's situation.

The thing I do not understand is how these people think that they can use the law as a tool, but that they are immune to being squeeky clean. They think that they are dealing with low life people that are not smart at all when in fact, they are dealing with highly inteligent people that are capable of thinking out of the box. A retorical question: Do you really think you can get away with these stunts?

[Dean_M_Love]

..."doubling down" is actually a pretty good analogy for his tactics...too bad he didn't buy insurance in case of a dealer blackjack....

...in fact he has now put the original settlement in jeopardy, as we have amended that claim to include allegations of bad faith negotiations for negotiating an agreement that he already knew was or would be breached by filing the Nagracard claim....according to case law in Manitoba the relief for bad faith negotiations is to undo the deal that was negotiated in bad faith, and compensate for all losses incurred by the party who didn't act in bad faith...

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by Dean_M_Love
..."doubling down" is actually a pretty good analogy for his tactics...too bad he didn't buy insurance in case of a dealer blackjack....

Too funny!!! See what I mean about 'highly inteligent people that can think out of the box.' Dean is going to deal him some nasty cards, I just know it!!!! :)

I can just imagine him sitting in his rocking chair on the porch after he retires. He will be cursing those 'Damn Hackers' that abused the law and got his law practice taken away from him.

Maybe we can all pitch in and buy him a private script and a DSS box so he has something to fill his time when he isn't practicing law anymore? Anybody feeling charitable out there? I'm in for $5.

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by Dean_M_Love
in fact he has now put the original settlement in jeopardy, as we have amended that claim to include allegations of bad faith negotiations for negotiating an agreement that he already knew was or would be breached by filing the Nagracard claim.

Whoa... So explain this to me... You didn't settle with McKenzie. You settled with his client. Two questions:

First, if the client was in good faith, the agreement would not be thrown out, right??? It was only McKenzie that was in bad faith.

Secondly, if it did get thrown out, I guess his client would be rip $hit and start sueing McKenzie for screwing up thier position. That would be a clear example of malpractice.

Dean, can you type a few lines and explain???

[Dean_M_Love]

...well McKenzie was negotiating on behalf of his clients, so it is their settlement that will be in jeopardy...I have no settlement with McKenzie....but the settlement DOES specify that the plaintiffs "..agents, solicitors, investigators.." etc. etc. shall not disclose to any third party, so he is their solicitor, therefore their problem.

...if they choose, they certainly can sue him for negligence for negotiating in bad faith on their behalf....particularly when it comes to Nagra, somehow I don't really think NDS appreciates the settlement being put on the line because McKenzie wanted to enlist a new client, Nagra....

[Salty Jizm]

Gotcha! But with you being an ignorant, low life... I'm sure the right answer was for McKenzie to start the scorched earth campaign. After all, that is going to scare you back into the corner where you belong.

What an @$$ hole.

But you know, the funny part of all this is: You potentially will make more money off the lawsuits than you could have made selling satelite equipment. A little ironic, huh?

[Dean_M_Love]

...well maybe, maybe not, you could ask Revenue Canada, I made out pretty good selling satellite in Canada....and so did they as a result of my success....

[Mustang5ohhh]

Oh yeah ... a real bunch of Robin Hoods those Revenue boys !!! Tax breaks to the big companies ... and tax the little guys to the gills. Taxes on Taxes on Taxes ... Quebec, distinct society and home to legal double taxation.

God bless Canada ... Land of the free, as long as you SUB to Bell.

MAD AS HELL TODAY.