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

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>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...
>"Frank Olson"

If the legal staff for Brinks had any other motive than more billing, I
would think they would press harder and deny any attempts to get this back
into court. Since money it their only objective I doubt their would even be
a whipper of protest to see this all go back to square one.

<use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:djO4j.91617$cD.91197@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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...