Re: Brinks Attorney Information Part 2

["Roland More" <NoSpamroland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Law suits are divided into parts. One part (after receiving legal service of
course) is called discovery. Since Mr. Sableman is making a point with the
court about his TRO pleadings, and not a sworn statement, it is not yet
subject to the same rules of evidence. It is more or less an indication to
you (and the court) of what he may present as evidence if this ever goes to
trial. If any of this information is going to be presented at trial then you
can (hopefully by then through your attorney) object to it by saying you
weren't its author. Mr. Sableman is not going to have to do much to prove it
was you however. Since it's a civil case, you will merely get sworn during a
discovery session and he asks you questions. You will not get asked the
question in a manner that provides you with an opportunity for some coy
answer, like the one in your post. That was "Any clown can write a message
and have it say it was sent by me." He will more likely ask "are you the
clown that sent this?" And if he asks you the question and you don't answer
truthfully, it not only ruins your case, but subjects you to criminal
sanctions. Ever notice how many political types get sent up for perjury
instead of what the original beef was over. He is setting you up and you are
knocking yourself down. I knew a guy that tried this back in the late
1970's. He got free room and board at
http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/trv/index.jsp. until the early
1990's. By the way, this isn't (yet) a criminal case where you don't have to
testify against yourself, unless there is an objection that is upheld by the
court, you have to answer the questions asked. FYI attorneys don't ask
important questions that they don't already know the answer to as a rule
(other than on Perry Mason). If you hire a clever lawyer he or she might try
to exclude this stuff you've posted in a procedure called a motion in
limine. I'll say it again, not telling the truth about its authorship is not
a stunt you want to try to pull in Federal Court. I fear you still don't see
the real danger of that gaping maw you're allowing yourself to fall into.
Maybe you should take up a different hobby like gathering twigs, and then
swatting hungry wild grizzly bears on the nose with them. Getting caught
lying in Federal Court or playing with the bears is about the same since
either will get you get torn apart in ways you won't want to imagine,
although with the bear thing you'll be complaining about paying too much to
doctors instead of lawyers.

"Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46ab5995$0$32554$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> All the information posted was obtained by doing a Google search. I am not
> violating any laws whatsoever. Sometimes public information can be very
> useful in bring up points. Mr Sableman already made the mistake of quoting
> USENET threads in his TRO's. USENET messages can be faked, altered, and
> sent in anonymously. Any clown can write a message and have it say it was
> sent by me. I get spam emails everyday with my name as the author, even my
> email address & IP address is on it. It doesn't mean it came from me.
>
> Jim Rojas
>
>
>
>
> Just Looking wrote:
>> I have not been able to figure out why you posted this. This guy isn't
>> some
>> lawyer who graduated from some obscure law school going to night classes.
>> He
>> is probably smarter and more ambitious than anyone posting here. He
>> certainly has a better understanding of the practice of law than anyone
>> here. That doesn't mean you can't prevail against him and Brinks, if you
>> just get it together. But it isn't just his ability you face. This guy is
>> of
>> an age range that he probably has many friends on the bench and knows
>> many
>> Georgetown Alumni on the bench elsewhere (like where you live). Favors do
>> get traded. You could be getting screwed over a business lunch or a golf
>> game and not even know it. He might have already planned to have your pro
>> se
>> appeals torpedoed too with a "careful" conversation with one of his
>> buddies
>> that just might get assigned the case. Posting this crap is just giving
>> him
>> wood. And it is wood he'll most likely use on you. You need to get
>> yourself
>> out from under the bus because I think he is gunning the engine.
>>
>> "Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:46a8e62c$0$3130$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Mark Sableman practices in the following areas of law: Communications;
>>> Intellectual Property; Internet Law; Technology Law
>>>
>>> Admitted: 1979, Illinois; 1986, Missouri
>>>
>>> Law School: Georgetown University, J.D., cum laude, 1979
>>>
>>> College: Grinnell College, B.A., with honors, 1972; Northwestern
>>> University, M.S.J., 1973
>>>
>>> Biography: Author: "More Speech, Not Less: Communications Law in the
>>> Information Age," Southern Illinois University Press, 1997; "Fair
>>> Comment, the 'Brightest Jewel in the Crown of the Law,' as Protection
>>> for Free Speech and Against Abusive SLAPP Suits," Journal of the
>>> Missouri Bar, May-June 2005; "Link Law Revisited: Internet Linking Law
>>> at Five Years," 16 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1273, Fall 2001.
>>> Adjunct Professor, Internet Law, 2001 and Censorship and Free
>>> Expression, 2006, Washington University School of Law.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim Rojas wrote:
>> http://www.thompsoncoburn.com/Firm_Information/Attorneys_By_Last_Name/Index.aspx?Alpha=S
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thompsoncoburn.com/Firm_Information/Attorney_Resumes/328.pdf
>>