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

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

He does work pro bono for the ACLU. Jim is a more worthy cause. And with a
Jim's Hispanic surname it could be a perfect marriage. In case Jim doesn't
speak any Spanish (or only speaks formal Spanish) I'll translate into
Tex-Mex for him so he'll know how to hire an ACLU type lawyer once he gets
to Texas.
Dinero?
No, No tiene any!


"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6n65j.25808$UQ1.17847@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Roland Moore wrote:
> >> 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.
>
>
> Personally, I see this whole thing as a failure for Sableman.  Look at
> the man's CV.  This guy is an expert on copyright and intellectual
> property law.  I'm sure he was looking forward to being named in another
> precedent setting case.  A default judgment is a hollow victory that
> doesn't do anything to showcase his legal acumen (nor does it do
> anything towards establishing Brinks "IP".
>
> I'm thinking Sableman should wire Jim the money for a defense.  ;-)