Re: Brinks Home Security v Jim Rojas Lawsuit

["Russell Brill" <russwbrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

They keep accusing you of being a thief, I think I'd start looking for a
lawyer to counter sue Brinks for slander and the filing of a frivolous
lawsuit... What you're facing is commonly known as a "Slap Suit", it's to
shut you up or shut you down by running you out of money... You really need
to seek legal counsel, somebody that's willing to take the Fuckers (sorry,
these Corp. types anger me) on just because it's the right thing to
do........... What's really sad about the whole thing, you couldn't hurt
Brinks if you tried, they out advertise you, and they have lots of other
resources (tons of Sales staff) at their disposal... The lawyers must be
looking to justify their existence by finding someone to sue in the name of
Brinks all mighty......... How sickening..... Ugh.......

"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
>>