Re: The latest Brinkle in Jim's life.

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Rojas wrote:
> What I said is that the website will be mirrored to prevent Sableman
> from shutting it down again with his false claims. This has already been
> investigated by my webhosting company. They found no Brinks IP or trade
> secrets contained anywhere. I still don't understand what they were
> looking for since Brinks never made clear what it was they should look
> for to begin with.

Getting your web hosting company to "look" for Brinks specific "IP" is
like hiring a janitor to look for a ground fault on an Edwards EST-3.
No disrespect intended towards your provider, but they aren't in the
alarm business.  Mecca (my hosting provider) takes TOS violation
complaints very seriously (as I'm sure yours does as well).  Where
they're different is that mine informed me of the complaint and
suggested I remove the "offending material" instead of simply shutting
me down.  This gave me the opportunity to defend the software and the
fact that it's YOUR Intellectual Property and that I had your permission
to host it.  To date, Brinks has not come forward with *any* specifics
to back up their complaint.  In fact, this whole thing is ludicrous if
you think about it.  It's like RHC (Home Metal) deciding that he doesn't
like the fact that Bass sells "Home Metal" (private labeled Paradox)
panels and makes the installation manuals freely available to anyone who
asks.  Brinks next move is to have the Honeywell website shut down
because they make the installation and programming manuals for their
panels available to any Dealer in the world.


>
> This is a clear example how an bottom feeding attorney can take ones own
> words and twist them to suit their needs.

No, Jim.  This is a clear example of how important it is that YOU attend
the Court and present a clear and concise defense.  You should have
addressed this issue by responding to every one of Brinks allegations
instead of simply "ignoring" the issue.


> Sableman thinks he has won.

He has "won"...  by default.


> So be it.

Unfortunately that's not going to help your case either.


> Its too bad I can't be executed for knowing the truth

We ALL know the truth, Jim.  The Court has only heard Brinks side of the
case.  They have no other opinion to go on.


> ...unless he
> somehow convinces the court that I now pose a nation security risk. This
> shouldn't be too hard for Sableman to accomplish. All it takes is an
> anonymous phone call to homeland security, and another motion.

The next thing you know, you'll be whisked away to Guantanamo Bay.


>
> The Court is basically taking Sablemans word for it. After all, why else
> would Brinks spend all their shareholders dividends on this unless it is
> all true?

Sigh.  The Court is taking "Brinks" view because you didn't properly
represent your side of the argument.