Re: Brinks Home Security v Jim Rojas Lawsuit

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

Look its real simple,

1. Let it go to court
2. Let them call you to the stand
3. When the Brinks lawyer demands you answer questions say these two words
very slowly and very carefully "Noba Bascoba"
4.
5. Get up, thank the court and walk out the door, there is nothing they can
do, case dismissed

Trust me

"Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4692d5c4$0$4661$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
> >
> >