Re: Brinks Home Security v Jim Rojas Lawsuit

[Jim Rojas <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brinks now wants to file a temporary restraining order.

http://www.tech-man.com/Brinks%20TRO%20Motion.pdf

Thank you all for your support.

Jim Rojas


Just Looking wrote:
> 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
>
>