Re: hello

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It would be nice if the civil court system were just that, civil. A
technique used merely for resolving disputes between two honest men.
However, it seems like you've never had the real pleasure of experiencing
the true civility of it all. If you have some spare time, and a big bottle
of anti depressants, alcohol, or what ever numbs your conscience, I suggest
you make a visit sometime. After a lengthy visit I don't think it will be
something you'd recommend to many as a remedy for settling anything, other
than draining a fat wallet to nothing. Jim didn't ever seek to court a
financial disaster for himself with Brinks. However, when battling in
Federal Court it is not uncommon to have an attorney that wants about
$25,000 just to start. I don't know what your legal budget is, but
personally I'd rather have a new car, well I already have a new car, but you
get my point. Brinks could have played this any number of ways. To date I
have not seen Brinks show anything about any actual dollar loss, making it
even more bizarre as to why Brinks wants to pound Jim so hard. It wasn't
Brinks idea to have a nice abstract theory discussion of the technical
merits of the case by taking Jim to court, it was their whole point to
carpet bomb Jim financially into complete and utter submission. That is
typical of the methodology of large corporations, not just Brinks. If you
happened to read the CV of the guy they picked to go after Jim you'd see
that they didn't pick a young lawyer straight out of some obscure law
school. Brinks didn't pick a guy that plays a role as a lawyer on TV either.
The Brink's legal representative has an impressive CV, especially in the
area he is litigating with Jim. This guy is aggressive to a fault, even
using posts from this NG to bolster his case. So much for your "free speech"
comment. In short, few like to see the underdog get eaten, and so far that
is all I've seen. If you have the wherewithal perhaps you wouldn't mind
ponying up the $25K for Jim to get this civil action going in Jim's favor?
If you don't happen to have $25K that you are ready and willing to toss down
the rat hole, perhaps Jim's situation might seem a little more deserving of
a bit of sympathy for him and plenty of antipathy for Brinks.

"Nathan W. Collier" <no@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OK6dndDnDs4-96HanZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> news:I_T_i.211576$1y4.160562@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > May I suggest that you have a look at Jim Rojas' website
> > (http://www.tech-man.com).  Read through what Brinks has been doing to
> > someone that has been a major help in this industry and others.
>
> as i said this entire situation is unfortunate, but ultimately this _is_
why
> our civil court system exists.  they didnt firebomb his house, they
> initiated a civil court proceeding so that the court can decide who is
> right.  i do not question mr. rojas motives or integrity one bit.  i have
no
> doubt that his intentions are pure and i respect him for that.  at the
same
> time, brinks for whatever reason feels there is an IP violation.  if a
> reasonable settlement cannot be reached, what better way to settle the
> dispute than to let the courts decide?
>
>
> > You've also responded to Bass in a civil manner.
>
> i respond to _everyone_ in a civil manner and treat others with the same
> level of respect that i would hope they would treat me.  over the years
ive
> learned that arguing on usenet is absolutely pointless.
>
>
> > As I said earlier...  Welcome to ASA.
>
> many thanks sir.
>
> --
> Nathan In Montana
> http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
> http://1911Talk.com
> http://HiPowerTalk.com
> http://GlockCarry.com
> http://p99sw99.com
> http://PPStalk.com
> http://P7talk.com
>
>