Re: Open Letter to Brinks over Tech-Man

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Oct 11, 6:42?pm, "Just Looking" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> October 11, 2007
> The regular meeting forhttp://www.hgcaa.org/occurred today. I was not in
> attendance. I was at a refinery. Unfortunately I have not yet figured a way
> to crack the hydrocarbons in old melted down Brinks panels to help solve the
> energy problem. However many dealers and central station operators at that
> meeting have been following this matter with Jim carefully. Most were not
> aware how far it has escalated recently, especially the temporary site
> shutdown. In this part of the country there are some real concerns about all
> this by folks well known in this industry. J.D. Benfer told me he would
> bring all this up again at today's meeting in Houston. I believe many
> central station operators like Benfer aren't convinced that they won't
> somehow get sucked into this dispute, one that is essentially over nothing.
> Everyone has a vested interest in saving their own butt. I have asked many
> central station operators, including Benfer, about how prevalent this Brinks
> panel take over thing is and have been told it is simply a non event. It
> literally doesn't happen. It would not likely be condoned by the operators
> if it were discovered. Brinks doesn't have any real allies in this industry.
> Brinks is tolerated by most in the industry simply because of the easy
> business it frequently generates from the abundance of dissatisfied Brinks
> customers nearly any competent dealer can acquire. This legal action may be
> doing something to reverse that trend. I can say there will be some back
> door contacts made to Brinks over this issue to invite sanity to return.
> This is going to be on the agenda of many alarm association meetings in the
> near future if there isn't a sudden change of tact by Brinks. I wonder how
> the court would react if there were direct submittals by nearly every
> contract central station operator out there to contradict Brinks'
> description of the danger to their business over this. I suspect someone
> should get really busy to figure out a strategy to overcome the real truth
> of the matter. People are getting really pissed off over this. They are
> pissed off enough to want to open their wallets and get something going. It
> might not be like a David and Goliath contest after that.
> As and example, if I were a salesperson for Brinks I might not want to try
> to explain to a customer why the previous salesperson from another company
> left a detailed sheet of questions to ask me about Brinks policies. I
> wouldn't like to find that Brinks had been blacklisted by nearly every alarm
> association on that list of questions for me to answer. I might wonder how
> this Brinks hand out ended up on nearly every counter at places like ADI,
> SGI, Tri-Ed, Richardson's etc. I guess because it had the alarm association
> meeting schedule on the other side of the paper? Most folks want to know how
> good your product or service is when making a purchase, not how many mad dog
> attorneys you have available to turn loose on them. More than a few alarm
> dealers are retired ex cops. It is amazing what strings they can pull to
> make someone look really bad, and how far some of the favors owed to them
> can really reach.
>

With reference to this "detailed sheet of questions to ask about
Brinks policies"  Please E-mail me a copy or let me know (via E-mail
only) if it really exists.  This way, if it does or doesn't exist,
lawyer "Strudleman" will never know one way or the other. A list such
as this is certainly something that could be E-mailed to every NBFAA
affiliated alarm installer in the USA along with the story of what
they are doing to Jim.

Why if you think about it, some one could get that out to thousands of
alarm companies across the nation in .... what?  say a week or so?