Re: Brinks v Jim Rojas New Motion

[Jim Rojas <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah right...a likely story. Even I am not even sure I am who I think I
am. Am I? So how can you claim that you are not Jim Rojas, or ever
pretended to be him? huh? huh? Yeah, I thought so... :)

Jim Rojas



Just Looking wrote:
> I am a real person. My name is not Jim Rojas. I have never used the alias
> Jim Rojas. I don't know what angle Brinks' legal staff is pursuing. However
> I do keep a rainy day fund for attorney enrichment programs. I never have
> represented myself Pro Se and never would. I have been to Federal Court for
> civil rights violations, State Court for person injury, local courts of
> record for zoning disputes, divorce court, probate court, criminal court for
> identity theft and plenty more. I respect and follow the judgments and
> rulings of the court. That is a matter of public record not too difficult
> for an attorney to discover. When I get involved I stay to the end, over 7
> years in one case before it finally went to trail. Overzealous advocating
> for a client interests is no reason or excuse for any attorney to step over
> the line and knowingly make false accusations or misleading statements to
> the court. I would not admit to any of the accusations in the pleadings with
> the court and would demand strict proof thereof. I do know where Brinks' and
> its legal staff accepts legal service.
>
> Since I am not Jim Rojas, or an attorney, I can only say what I might do as
> a first step. That would be to get the number the attorney works under as a
> member of the bar. I hope he is a current member and hasn't lapsed. I would
> send a properly formed letter to the attorney and ask for a clarification of
> his position and about the foundation for his allegations disguised as
> statements of fact. At the same time I would copy the bar and submit an
> official complaint on the proper forms to the bar having jurisdiction over
> said attorney. I would investigate further to see if there is a pattern of
> this sort of behavior and include the record of any past actions against
> this attorney as part of my complaint. I would also make certain the court
> was informed of the my actions in this regard.
>
> "Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:470c3c46$0$20655$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> According to Brinks, all these threads is just me and my sock puppets...
>> I do admit I do often talk to myself, but not since I got back on my
>> meds... :)
>>
>> Jim Rojas
>>
>>
>>
>> tourman wrote:
>>>> Someone needs to explain to me how someone would want to use a piece of
> crap
>>>> alarm panel like Brinks for a takeover anyway. If Brinks really does
> own the
>>>> system, you'd lose your license anyway for doing it in this state. Why
>>>> persist with all this other legal hocus pocus? The risk and the reward
> don't
>>>> match. Before I read those posts on take overs I didn't think anyone
> did it.
>>>> I still haven't ever seen or even heard of it being done anywhere in
> real
>>>> life. Sounds more like a tempest in a teapot someone turned into a
> payday.
>>> RHC: I am of the same mind as yourself. I really don't know why anyone
>>> would want to break the lock code on a proprietary Brinks panel unless
>>> they wanted to use it only in local mode. Especially since it's not
>>> very useful equipment anyway, and new panels sell for less than $100.
>>> Most panels are unlocked for clients so they can be put back on line
>>> properly without going to the expense of buying a new board. Brinks
>>> equipment to my knowledge is useless for that unless it goes back to
>>> Brinks.
>>>
>>> But as to your never having heard of anyone actually breaking the lock
>>> out code, I can assure you it is done because I do it every day. At
>>> the moment, I crack about 10 to 20 boards a week, sent to me by large
>>> customers I trust, other dealers I know in the area, but mostly by
>>> homeowners moving into newly purchased homes with improperly locked
>>> boards (DSC and Paradox only)....(see..http://www3.sympatico.ca/
>>> rh.campbell/unlocking_services.htm).... However, just like Jim does,
>>> we do NOT do it where we know it is in violation of someone's
>>> ownership or contract rights. I have over the years worked with Jim
>>> and we share mutual secrets on how to do this, and I doubt very much
>>> that there is anything to their claims. So I am following this Brinks
>>> business with some amount of dismay as to how this foolishness ever
>>> started as I'm pretty sure their accusations are baseless, given my
>>> knowledge of Jim and his unlocking activities. I think things have
>>> gotten out of hand because Jim is pretty pissed off at the moment and
>>> is reacting in kind, and more so, because he has seen fit to challenge
>>> them in their own game, and they have responded the only way they know
>>> how. I will admit, I'm pretty worried about the situation for his sake
>>> though. When you choose to sleep with an elephant, you better get out
>>> of the way when it rolls over.
>>>
>>> I have no doubt that I could crack any Brinks board within minutes
>>> given the knowledge and specialized equipment that both Jim and I, and
>>> one other that I know of, possess. The bigger question is, why would
>>> we want to even bother cracking their shit !!  But then again, if they
>>> continue to persist in this foolishness, I just might start where Jim
>>> left off. Then they can start on me up here in Canada.
>>>
>>> I hope Brinks backs off before this blows up in their faces. They may
>>> win this fight, but they will surely lose the battle......
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>