Re: Jim R's filed motions

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.