Re: The latest Brinkle in Jim's life.

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think it is uncommon for folks to hold a view of the legal system
the way Jim does. I am certain he was surprised to find the price to pony up
to Brinks was $25K. If that was the first time you'd ever heard numbers like
that it would be shocking I am sure. It seems Jim had the idea that all this
would sort itself out with out having to shell out the cash. To be certain
more than a few lawyers representing large corporations, like Brinks for
example, use this tactic to financially muscle folks into submission. It is
funny since on the one had an attorney might be a proud member of the ACLU
and resist the use of a SLAPP suit. But under the color of law, use the same
tactic against someone like Jim, (that is "silence critics or opponents by
burdening them with the cost of a legal defense"). This is hypocrisy at its
finest in my opinion. One more chance to appreciate and respect those in the
"legal" profession. If a certain someone happens to read this I am sure the
involuntary clucking of tongues will begin to protest the dissimilarities.
Unfortunately that will only serve the conscience of an audience of one, and
probably won't seem compelling even there.

"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XkGWi.168206$1y4.95830@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.