Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Everywhere Man wrote:
> Which only gives an absolute AMEN to my stance of TOUGH SHIT!
> Now this really pisses me off that the NBFAA has the balls to ask me to
> chip in to defend ADT.
> Why is the NBFAA so willing to throw millions of OUR dollars to help
> defend a billion dollar conglomerate like Tyco, and why did they
> neglect to mention the company's name in their plea for funds?
> I can't wait to hear all of you who drank the NBFAA Kool Aid try to
> justify this one.
> The organization has just officially become a total fucking sham. Just
> admit you're all fucking stupid for buying the shit they were slinging.
>
> Someone audit these bozos and find out what board member is related to
> the lawyer they want to retain.
>
> Nick Lawrence............. I can hear you laughing hard because you've
> been preaching for a long time about what a crock of crap they are. Way
> to go calling that one Nick.
>
> Drive down the coast and buy Doug a beer for posting the info.
>
>
I believe the reason is ...... that if it's decided against ADT, then
in the future the case
can be refered to by any lawyer in US, as a precedent to throw out the
limitation
of libility clause in any alarm contract. If that happens, obviously
our insurance rates are going to skyrocket and I mean REALLY skyrocket.
 It doesn't matter that it's ADT. It's the elimination of the
limitation of libility clause.