Re: Brinks v Jim Rojas New Motion

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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......
> >
> >
> >