Re: Jim R's filed motions

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

Whats a shreddie?

"Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nssSi.37035$054.33583@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I've never seen someone blow in the wind as much as you do Frank, you
change
> position more often than most people change their shreddies. Almost all
the
> advice given to Jim in this group, save for those along the lines of "get
a
> good attorney" has been complete and utter bollocks.
>
> Doug
>
> --
>
> "Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> news:c4sSi.91794$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.
>
>