Re: What's a Brinks 4000?

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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

I think Jim is counting on that by some on the responses I see from him
here. I believe at this point he must know or at least agree with what
you've posted. For Jim to have that blank Brinks PSA agreement in hand
suggests to me that there is some sort of discovery occurring here.
Hopefully he is getting ready for Brinks. If he is not getting ready for
court, then he should bring a toothbrush.


"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e0c769dae62a2c50f78ea7a159bf0117@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >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.
>