Subject: RE: Progress? (fwd)
From: Jim Thomas (jthomas@math.niu.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2008 - 12:10:44 CDT
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:57:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@math.niu.edu>
To: "Lindgren, Scott" <Scott.Lindgren@echostar.com>
Cc: Diana Herr <diana.herr@echostar.com>,
Condo Board <condoboard@1250westvanburen.com>
Subject: RE: Progress?
Scott, I know you're in the middle and doing your best and caught up
in the maize of policy and law. But, I'm not totally convinced that
of some of your points. The attorneys can clarify, and my previous
note was a request for you/Diana to make sure that you are all
interpreting the obligations accurately rather than couching policy
in legal terms.
But, just a few quick comments:
> Without a Right of Entry agreement we can't go into the building. If we
> did we would be using equipment that we do not own, Roddy's
> infrastructure, which opens up a whole other legal mess.
Do you need entry to the building to set up an account or do an
upgrade? I was given information by Dish/Echostar a while back that
setting up an account could be done by flipping a switch if the
owners buy/lease their receivers from you? That aside and something
you could easily check:
--My information, which could be inaccurate given how much inaccurate
information was passed on to us from various sources, is that
Roddy leased the roof satellites from Dish.
--Our contract with Roddy, as our termination letter of July 3, 2008,
emphasized was explicit: He had 30 days to respond to us about
about his intents and disposition of equipment. If he did not
do so, then we, the Association, could consider his equipment
abandoned.
It may be that the legal restrictions are not as hard-wired as you
suggest.
> The fastest way to get service is for the contract to be signed.
Only true if your restrictions are actually legally binding rather
than ad hoc interpretation of legal wording that becomes a form of
coercion to sign the contract.
> I have kind of moved out of the way for the lawyers to work it out but
> the last I heard was that venue of any lawsuit is the biggest issue.
> DISH Network is based in Colorado and if for some reason there is a
> lawsuit between Vanguard Lofts and DISH Network the case would handled
> in Colorado, not Illinois. No other DISH Network commercial building in
> Chicago has its venue of Illinois.
This is incorrect. Please see item 19 of our contract with USA Dish,
signed August29, 2000, in which Illinois was specified as the venue.
We are asking only that Dish Network honor that part of the original
contract. Although an issue for the lawyers, it seems like a bait-and-switch on
the Dish/Echostar side.
> We have conceded on numerous points to get the contract signed. We are
> just waiting to get some answers on your end.
In looking at the red-lining, both sides have conceded on points. Also,
some of Dish/Echostar's concessions were on issues that were rather
unreasonable, such as the "secrecy" provision in the contents of the
contract, or minor, such as the wording of the marketing rights the
Association would give to Dish/Echostar. Further, given our horrendous
experience with Roddy, we want to avoid any repeat of the problems.
We're all required to leave legal interpetations to the lawyers. But,
there seem to be some inconsistencies in those interpretations and in
the facts on which they're based. I'm asking only that Dish/Echostar
not obfuscate the language of the law, of contracts, and of facts,
to delay providing service.
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jul 27 2009 - 12:45:43 CDT