Re: Brinks Home Security v Jim Rojas Lawsuit

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It certainly was nice for Brink's to make sure this got into Federal Court
instead of any State Court. This is guarantied to weed out any chance of any
influence reason has to play. There is seldom anything fair, reasonable, or
just that finds its way out of any courtroom in any case. Being correct (or
innocent for that matter) is no defense. All the items that Jim submitted
are really items that would be used for his defense at trial. Working as his
own attorney to date may make it more difficult for him to hire
representation later on. Most responses to the court at this stage of
litigation are point by point boiler plate denials of the facts claimed by
the other side and stating a demand of "strict proof thereof". Unless the
Court for some strange reason takes pity on Jim, I doubt the court would
take any notice of the facts in Jim's submissions just for that reason.
However Brink's might use it to prepare a motion in limine to make certain
it never gets seen or heard in court. Ultimately, if Brink's pursues this,
these will be the matters of fact for a jury to decide and Brink's lawyers
will do everything to make certain only their version of the facts are heard
by a jury and that Jim's aren't. The jury is the finder of fact and the
judge applies the law. The lawyers stuff their pockets with cash from both
sides in the meantime. It is sickening. Acting as his own council Jim should
not expect to win anything at the trial level mostly because he is right and
he probably wouldn't understand the technique for getting what he put on his
response as evidence for a jury see in the first place, let alone to
consider. As a practical matter the judge couldn't take too much notice of
the items Jim submitted since a proper foundation for their admissibility
has not been established and objections to their entry from the other side
have not been heard by the court. Quoting nolo.com: "Rules that are as
strict as they are quirky and technical govern what types of evidence can be
properly admitted as part of a trial." I suggest that Jim spend some time
watching a real trial or two with similar type disputes in a Federal Court
in his own area to get the flavor of what I am saying. It is too easy to
think that I am being bitter or warped in my descriptions of the legal
system unless you see it for yourself in action. Once seen it is truly
something to hold in complete contempt.

"Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:468e8aeb$0$12231$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Read this document. It has been revised.
>
> http://www.tech-man.com/Jim%20Rojas%20Reply.pdf
>
> Thank you all for your support.
>
> Jim Rojas