Re: 3:07cv0437 B, Brinks Home Security, Inc. v. Jim Rojas]

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just Looking wrote:
> Okay, you've gone as far as you can go here.

Actually, Jim could go further, but it would require an appearance in
Texas Court (and even then he'd be hard pressed to avoid those guys in
the chicken suits).


> Are you finally going to hire
> an attorney to get your butt out of this jam?

I don't think an attorney's going to help at this point.  I'd say Jim's
"butt" is so far into the "jam", he may was well turn the other cheek
and let them "butter" that as well.


> I wonder what person or group helped the court reach the conclusion that
> your argument was specious in nature.

I think a lot of what the court has "seen" of Jim is his total disregard
of procedures, and the court's jurisdiction.


> In less the court is making a comment
> of the actual form of the pleading itself, it seems the court has already
> reached some conclusion here, and it isn't good for you Jim.

Duhh...  They have a judgment, Einstein.


> Federal Court
> is noted for having some very arcane and particular ways to introduce
> evidence, none of which you or anyone else here is familiar with.

I'd say that if you're "not there" to present your evidence, ignore the
preliminary statement, and "thumb your nose" at the Judge, you're not
exactly going to endear yourself to any court (Federal or otherwise).


> Any
> special pleading is likely to be ignored when done pro se.

At this stage, yes.


> Taking your web
> site to a place you think is out of the court's reach isn't going to secure
> any real victory for you.

It will make Brinks attorneys work a little harder.  However, I believe
that Brinks is having a second look at what it is they're trying to
accomplish here.  Jim isn't exactly "playing ball" the way they expected
(hey might even think that he isn't playing with "a full deck").  If
they'd planned on a precedent setting Judgment, they certainly didn't
get that.  A default Judgment is a hollow one, and certainly won't
accomplish their goal (which was to establish IP rights).  Dammit Jim,
you didn't play by the rules!!


> If you want to get this in your rear view mirror I
> think you're going to have to sack up, cash up, lawyer up and face the
> music.

I figure Jim's pretty well made himself "judgement proof".  Brinks
probably knows this.  Right now, they're throwing money down the toilet.
  I don't think their shareholders will take too kindly to that.


> I talked to some members of the local alarm association here. They
> are still sympathetic to your case. Isn't there a local alarm association
> there in Tampa that you can reach out to about this? Those members could
> reach out to other local associations around the country to help secure more
> funding. I think the help is there for you if you're not too proud or
> stubborn to ask for it.

I'm not certain that Jim's case is even "win-able" at this time.  And if
it is, what exactly is the point?  The real issue has been buried under
a mountain legal double-talk, lies, and misconceptions.  The fact that
Brinks has no "IP" to protect in ANY of their installation manuals has
been "lost" on the court because Jim didn't respond in a timely (or
correct) fashion, and failed to present a lucid argument.  Right now, a
"legal fund" would pour money down the same hole Brinks has been filling
lately.  There is no bottom and there definitely isn't an east tunnel...