Re: What's a Brinks 4000?

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Well if thats the case, why should I bother going to Dallas?
>
>I'll send a letter to the Judge stating thanks but no thanks. I'll take
>the grandkids to Busch Gardens instead.
>
>There is no point showing up if the outcome will be the same.

The point of showing up is to keep your ass out of jail.  This is not Judge
Judy you're facing, this is a federal judge who has ordered you to show up.
If she wants to, she can lock you up.  Besides, it's not smart to piss off
the judge who will be deciding how much money you owe Brink's.

Looking at the bright side, if they do lock you up, you're entitled to a
lawyer. :)

I get the impression you really don't understand what's going on, and
that's very unfortunate.  You'd be wise to spend a few hundred bucks and
just talk things over with a lawyer before you go to Texas, even if he
won't be representing you.  He can at least explain in more detail what
you're up against.  But here's a short version.

This is what was supposed to happen.  Brink's files a complaint, listing
all the terrible things they think you've done.  You file an answer,
admitting or denying each of those things.  Both sides then start gathering
evidence through what is known as "discovery:"  you ask them questions,
they ask you questions, you make them produce documents and they make you
do the same, and so on.  Both sides then figure out how strong or weak
their case is, and maybe you settle some of the issues.  If not, then you
move on towards trial.  Eventually, a jury, or maybe the judge, decides the
issues based on the evidence.

What happened when you didn't file an answer is that the court basically
figures Brink's must be telling the truth, since you didn't deny anything.
Those are the rules:  if you don't deny the factual allegations in the
complaint, you're considered to have admitted they are true.  That leaves
some legal issues for you to argue about, like personal jurisdiction:  if
the court doesn't have the legal authority to issue a judgment against you,
it doesn't matter if all the allegations in the complaint are true.

You are facing two hearings, on two relatively narrow issues.

The first hearing is about whether you violated the court's order about not
telling people about Brink's trade secrets.   You need to look at what you
were ordered not to do, and see whether you violated that order.  You could
argue the information isn't a trade secret, but the judge is more concerned
about whether you did something she told you not to do.

The second hearing is about that personal jurisdiction issue, whether you
have sufficient contacts with Texas for a court in Texas to have the
authority to issue a judgment against you.  This isn't small claims court,
and the judge isn't interested in whether you or Brink's is right.  This
isn't a trial.  It's a hearing on a legal issue.  You absolutely must have
a lawyer to have a chance of winning that argument.

And everybody, keep in mind that Brink's is reading every word we write.