Attorneys Compare EchoStar’s Request To PrimeTime 24
This one comes to us from out friends at Transmitternews.COM
http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/112006newsletter.cfm#H1
As expected the opposition to Judge Dimitrouleas granting a delay in the shut down of EchoStar distant network signals was quick to surface. Attorneys for the network affiliates filed the following response in the Florida District Court this morning:
“EchoStar devotes most of its Reply to arguing that its business will be better off if it can delay complying with the Permanent Injunction. But its real purpose is reveled in the following passage: “The additional requested time…will allow EchoStar the opportunity to continue to pursue a legislative solution to the problem.”
EchoStar does not point the Court to any authority whatsoever in support of its request to ignore the law on the books because it is trying to get Congress to change the law. And there is none. Another judge of this Court decisively dispatched the last litigant that made a similarly audacious request: EchoStar’s fellow nationwide infringer PrimeTime 24. When PrimeTime 24’s lawyers made virtually the identical request of this Court in 1997 to try to block a preliminary injunction, Magistrate Judge Linnea Johnson gave a forceful response: “PrimeTime 24 also observes that Congress [is] currently reviewing the cable and satellite compulsory licenses and argues that this Court should therefore stay its hand. PrimeTime 24 has not provided the Court with any precedent for this novel argument, and the Court is aware of none. Congress frequently considers changes in many statutes. But the Court’s task is to apply the law as Congress has enacted it. It is not for this Court to speculate about what changes Congress may (or may not) make in the future, or to apply a statute that Congress has not yet enacted.”
EchoStar trumpets the introduction of S.4067 by a few Senators, but all that S.4067 proves is how far EchoStar fell short of getting the law changed. To state the obvious, the introduction of a bill does not change the law. In fact, in nearly all cases, the introduction of a bill results in precisely nothing.
EchoStar made sure that all of the members of Congress that it lobbied were well aware of the December 1, 2006 effective date of this Court’s Permanent Injunction. But the House adjourned on November 15 without the introduction of any bill whatsoever, knowing that it would not return until December 5, after the Permanent Injunction will be in effect. And only after the House adjourned and, accordingly, knowing passage was impossible, did a few Senators (none of whom is the Senate Majority or Minority Leader or the Chairman of either of the two key committees) introduce an extremely limited bailout bill (S.4067) on November 16, knowing that their own house would adjourn that very day and not return until December 4, after the Permanent Injunction will be operative.
In short, Congress knew all about the December 1 deadline, but chose not to bail out EchoStar. The Court should therefore address (and deny) EchoStar’s motion on it (nonexistent) merits, not based on speculation about unenacted legislation.
The District Court Judges ruling in EchoStar’s delay request is expected at any time. The Transmitter News will keep you informed as updates warrant.
This one comes to us from out friends at Transmitternews.COM
http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/112006newsletter.cfm#H1
As expected the opposition to Judge Dimitrouleas granting a delay in the shut down of EchoStar distant network signals was quick to surface. Attorneys for the network affiliates filed the following response in the Florida District Court this morning:
“EchoStar devotes most of its Reply to arguing that its business will be better off if it can delay complying with the Permanent Injunction. But its real purpose is reveled in the following passage: “The additional requested time…will allow EchoStar the opportunity to continue to pursue a legislative solution to the problem.”
EchoStar does not point the Court to any authority whatsoever in support of its request to ignore the law on the books because it is trying to get Congress to change the law. And there is none. Another judge of this Court decisively dispatched the last litigant that made a similarly audacious request: EchoStar’s fellow nationwide infringer PrimeTime 24. When PrimeTime 24’s lawyers made virtually the identical request of this Court in 1997 to try to block a preliminary injunction, Magistrate Judge Linnea Johnson gave a forceful response: “PrimeTime 24 also observes that Congress [is] currently reviewing the cable and satellite compulsory licenses and argues that this Court should therefore stay its hand. PrimeTime 24 has not provided the Court with any precedent for this novel argument, and the Court is aware of none. Congress frequently considers changes in many statutes. But the Court’s task is to apply the law as Congress has enacted it. It is not for this Court to speculate about what changes Congress may (or may not) make in the future, or to apply a statute that Congress has not yet enacted.”
EchoStar trumpets the introduction of S.4067 by a few Senators, but all that S.4067 proves is how far EchoStar fell short of getting the law changed. To state the obvious, the introduction of a bill does not change the law. In fact, in nearly all cases, the introduction of a bill results in precisely nothing.
EchoStar made sure that all of the members of Congress that it lobbied were well aware of the December 1, 2006 effective date of this Court’s Permanent Injunction. But the House adjourned on November 15 without the introduction of any bill whatsoever, knowing that it would not return until December 5, after the Permanent Injunction will be in effect. And only after the House adjourned and, accordingly, knowing passage was impossible, did a few Senators (none of whom is the Senate Majority or Minority Leader or the Chairman of either of the two key committees) introduce an extremely limited bailout bill (S.4067) on November 16, knowing that their own house would adjourn that very day and not return until December 4, after the Permanent Injunction will be operative.
In short, Congress knew all about the December 1 deadline, but chose not to bail out EchoStar. The Court should therefore address (and deny) EchoStar’s motion on it (nonexistent) merits, not based on speculation about unenacted legislation.
The District Court Judges ruling in EchoStar’s delay request is expected at any time. The Transmitter News will keep you informed as updates warrant.
