TDG Offers Up His Son As The Guilty Party

[shootstraight]

WARD also testified that he and his son, William, operate a legal E-Bay business from that address with an associated PayPal account. See Franks Decl. (Doc. 59-2) Ward Depo., pp. 20-22; p. 29, Lines 4-22. The E-Bay and PayPal account had an e-mail address of EMAIL REMOVED which was accessible to William. A reasonable person might conclude that any of those persons had access to WARD’S computers and therefore his e-mail addresses and online personas. A reasonable person could infer that of the people living with WARD, William certainly had access to WARD’S computers, his e-mail addresses and E-Bay account and thus, could have sent the offending piracy software in messages and posted on the Internet as well as selling DISH Network-related products using the E-Bay account and WARD’S monikers.

He also says its illegal to post files for distribution. That is not going to help anyone in court. Docs attached.

[shadiah]

Please don't post personal info.

[shootstraight]

Originally Posted by shadiah

Please don't post personal info.

Ok did not think it was a problem since it came from the public docs that I posted.

[olympusom]

plausible deniability

[u133209]

Crazy stuff........

[wrangler]

It takes a coldhearted SOB to throw your own son to the wolves.

[JJ52150]

Nothing TDG does or says should surprise anybody -

[Paragon]

Originally Posted by wrangler

It takes a coldhearted SOB to throw your own son to the wolves.

He's not throwing anyone to the wolves, he's using the best defense he has. If it works NO ONE gets found liable cause everyone else who lived in his apartment has the exact same defense.

Dish is saying he did it, he is simply saying 'are you sure about that? cause here's some other people that had regular unrestricted access to my computers.'

Like when you get a ticket from a speed camera, the defense when you go to court is, prove it was me driving the car cause I loaned my car to my friend that day.

IP address is like a license plate on the web it identifies the computer but not the person typing at the keyboard. If you can prove some one else had access to the keyboard, can they really prove you were the one committing the illegal acts with your computer.

It's really the only defense he has, and ANY lawyer would use the same defense.

Where he may fail though is the fact that he plead guilty in the criminal case. Now dish has the counter argument to his 'prove it was really me using the keyboard' defense by simply offering up his guilty plea as an admission that it was in fact him.

They will just say 'If it wasn't you then what's up with you getting convicted in this here criminal case?'

[fifties]

Originally Posted by Paragon

Where he may fail though is the fact that he plead guilty in the criminal case. Now dish has the counter argument to his 'prove it was really me using the keyboard' defense by simply offering up his guilty plea as an admission that it was in fact him.

They will just say 'If it wasn't you then what's up with you getting convicted in this here criminal case?'

In the federal indictment, the charge was for violating provisions of the DMCA; conspiracy.

In the Civil Case, DN is after him for a money judgment due to their allegation of his promotion of piracy. Of course DN's legal counsel will try to tie them together, and Bob's lawyer will hopefully defeat them.

[shoemaker]

It smells lawyers work, when people gets caught doing wrong things they will do anything to get away from it.