Re: Jim R's filed motions

[Jim Rojas <jrojas+tech-man.com>]

My original reply to the court had these arguments in it concerning who
made these panels, plus alot more detailed pictures. The Court knows
this, and maybe when I take the bus to Dallas, she will then allow me to
better explain this evidence. Sableman's mission is clear. 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.

My continuance motion was aimed to possibly prevent Sableman from making
judgment calls without first consulting his clients legal counsel. I
understand that it was probably just a waste of time on my part, but
there is nothing saying that I can't try.

I have several other motions I will be filing shortly.


Jim Rojas



Frank Olson wrote:
> I would have mentioned that ALL of the "Brinks" security panels are
> manufactured by "others" for them.  Manufacturers DSC, Ademco, Paradox
> all put their names on the cans and keypads and also "private label" for
> the bigger companies.  In fact, they'll "private label" for almost
> anyone.  Jim, you provided photographs of the alarm circuit boards, and
> chipsets.  None of them say "property of Brinks" and *all* of them say
> either "Scantronic" or "Honeywell".  The programming manual for their
> 4000 panel has a copyright by Honeywell.  The "intellectual property"
> they're "defending" isn't even *their* intellectual property.  You've
> also caught Sableman in a big lie when he says that Brinks doesn't SELL
> their panels.  Get Crash to send you the original of that proposal he
> put on that photo sharing site (as well as anything else he can get
> a-hold of) and definitely call a "certain someone" that "brives a dus"
> to see if he can get you some more "bope on Drinks" and their sales
> tactics.  Sableman is protecting a company that is well known to
> vigorously hound any customer that tries to get out of their PSA.
> Sableman's admitted that Brinks installs equipment in new construction.
>  As them how they "defend" their "property" after the sale of the home
> goes through.  I'll bet they don't have a "leg to stand on", let alone a
> "pot to piss in" after you get through with them.
>
> Your "continuance" isn't going to pass muster, by the way.  I've never
> heard of a Defendant in a case filing for one on the grounds that the
> Plaintiff's Attorney can't be there.  If they wouldn't be able to be
> properly represented that would be cause for a motion for dismissal.