Re: Jim R's filed motions

["Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx>]

I've never seen someone blow in the wind as much as you do Frank, you change
position more often than most people change their shreddies. Almost all the
advice given to Jim in this group, save for those along the lines of "get a
good attorney" has been complete and utter bollocks.

Doug

--

"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c4sSi.91794$th2.31832@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jim Rojas wrote:
>> My original reply to the court had these arguments in it concerning who
>> made these panels, plus alot more detailed pictures.
>
>
> You should have answered each and every one of the "points" in the
> original Statement of Claim, refuting everything they alleged you did
> *and* calling into question Brinks intellectual property rights.  They
> would never have been able to proceed with the default judgment.
>
>
>> The Court knows this,
>
> The "Court" knows nothing.  I would have responded to Mr. Sableman's
> original letters completely differently.  All you've done is make yourself
> look foolish.  Belligerence has never been a good strategy.
>
>
>> and maybe when I take the bus to Dallas, she will then allow me to better
>> explain this evidence.
>
> Take all the parts and components with you.  Don't forget to ask Sableman
> how someone could sell a *boxed* Brinks panel on eBay (let alone the
> "deluxe" keypads).  Ask him what Brinks is doing about this.
>
>
>> Sableman's mission is clear.
>
> Sableman's "mission" is to win the case for Brinks.  He knows law, not
> security.  They've called in their "expert" to explain it.  Instead of
> coming across as the expert I know you to be though, your hostile
> responses make you look more like a Bass.
>
>
>> Confuse the Court into thinking his Client never sells their equipment
>> and that Brinks has rights to equipment even though a customer never
>> signed a PSA to begin with.
>
> Sableman can only present what his client tells him.  If his client says
> that they don't sell equipment (and their PSA seems to agree with that),
> then you have to present your arguments to the contrary.  You also have to
> show clear examples (proof).  Sableman's going to be in court with a truck
> load of evidence he's going to try and bury you with.  Your emailed
> responses to him will only serve to show that they're dealing with a
> nincompoop.  *YOUR MISSION* is to present the facts in as clear and
> concise a manner as you can.  You'll have to start with a formal apology
> and try and demonstrate you're the Professional *we* all know you to be.
>
>
>>
>> My continuance motion was aimed to possibly prevent Sableman from making
>> judgment calls without first consulting his clients legal counsel.
>
> That's not your job, Jim.  And Sableman will make all the *legal*
> "judgment calls" *for* his client (that are in *their* best interests and
> that will win him his case).  Brinks is represented in Court by their
> Attorneys.  No matter whom they decide to send (and it could even be a
> "clerk") as long as they are *acting* for Brinks, the matter will proceed.
>
>
>> I understand that it was probably just a waste of time on my part, but
>> there is nothing saying that I can't try.
>
> No...  I wouldn't consider it a "waste of time".  They have to respond to
> every Motion you put forth.  It's just going to mean more money in
> Sableman's pocket.  It's also going to mean more costs against you if you
> lose.
>
>
>>
>> I have several other motions I will be filing shortly.
>
> Fill your boots and the best of luck!  My thoughts and prayers are with
> you.