Re: How to Takeover Any Alarm System

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know what Jim will or won't heed. Certainly not advice from anyone
here it seems. He seems to want to take this case on pro se. It is the
responsibility of an attorney to control his or her client in the courtroom.
Acting pro se removes a layer of protection from the wrath of the court.
Ignorant and unprotected is not a good place to be in my opinion. I can only
guess that Jim has the understanding that all of this actually means
something to any of these people. Perhaps he thinks they have some concerns
about making a decision and whether it is right or wrong. I can tell you
they don't. They want to win, they want him to be destroyed, and they want
to use him as an example to others of what can happen if they don't do
exactly what they say to do and when they say to do it. A successful
attorney has no conscience. Far to expensive a habit to maintain. He serves
the interests of his client. Typically an attorney has no understanding of
science, it is explained to them in a process called forensics. Think for a
moment how utterly ridiculous this "legal" process is when it comes to what
society at large has come to rely on to make decisions of fact, versus what
a jury has to work with. You are to determine the facts. Okay. You can't
know any of the parties involved. You can't have any knowledge of the
situation or any situation deemed too similar. You can't asks questions. You
can't have access to any sorts of devices that could give you any
measurement or any metrics or any sort. You can't know the consequences of
your decision. If the issue before the court was whether or not a cup had
hot water in it or cold water, the last things a juror would be allowed
would be to stick his or her finger in the cup or put in a thermometer. If
you think I am being silly, ask an attorney these questions. This whole
"legal" process is out of control and has become a blight and an affliction
to us both as a country and a society. It tends to serve only those involved
in extracting cash from the system or the process. Jim is just the latest
uninspired poster child victim.
I have a feeling this could turn into an awful and expensive learning
experience for Jim. Of course he may know something he has not shared with
us yet that makes him less concerned for himself than most here seem to be
for him.

"Crash Gordon" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46978abf$0$505$815e3792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> and heed the TRO
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rob Giordano
> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>
>
>
>
>
> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:e1d3969584b49937360fbc854dc149aa@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> | Jim Rojas said:
> |
> | >We shall see what happens. I just finished the draft for the motion I
> | >have to file in a few days.
> |
> | I hope this time around you will make the effort to learn what a motion
is
> | supposed to look like.  There are court rules that specify the details.
> It
> | would behoove you to follow them.
> |
> | Keep in mind that this motion must not argue the merits of your case.
It
> | is a motion asking the judge to set aside the default.   Basically, you
> | need to explain to the judge why you didn't file an answer to the
> | complaint, and promise that from now on, you will play by the rules and
> | meet all the deadlines.  It would help if you can tell the judge you've
> | hired an attorney.
> |
> | If the judge grants your motion, then you will need to prepare and file
an
> | answer to the complaint.  Your "Response to Civil Action" is not an
> answer!
> | You really need some professional help with this, because your answer
must
> | not only admit or deny each allegation in the complaint, it must also
list
> | any affirmative defenses you intend to raise.  If you have any
> | counterclaims against Brink's, this would be the time to do that as
well.
> |
> | You are playing in the big leagues, against lawyers who have played this
> | game before.  I think you are already in over your head, and this is
just
> | the beginning, assuming the judge allows you to continue.  It's going to
> | get a lot worse.  You may think you can't afford a lawyer, but you can't
> | afford not to have one.
> |
> | - badenov
> |
>
>