Re: Open Letter to Brinks over Tech-Man

[Bob La Londe <alarm_wizard@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mWvPi.6367$ln.3330@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> ... I wonder if we would all as dealers who subscribe to Jim's services
>> have grounds for a tortious interrferrence lawsuit against Brinks...
>
> Unfortunately, no.  There's no tortious interference involved since
> they're not attempting to take you away from a contract with Jim. They're
> enforcing their intellectual property rights and their patents.  I happen
> to believe that what Jim is doing is not a violation of their patent, but
> that's a matter for the court to decide.

Sigh... My opinions below again.  (Protected Free Speech.)

They are attempting to deny me the right to a service I have paid
for.  This
is interferring with an enforceable agreement between Jim and myself.
I
paid a fee in exchange for access.  Overt acts in support of this
agreement
were performed by both parties and it is documentable.  Tortious
interferrence does not necessarily have to result in direct personal
gain by
the third party.  They are deliberately and knowledgably attempting to
deny
me a service I have an enforceable agreement to use, have paid for,
and they
are causing me harm.  If it is found by the court (correctly) that
Tech-Help
does not contain actual "trade secrets" they have also done so under
false
pretenses.  Since I took the time to download and read all of the
pages in
the latest Tech-Help Beta with regard to Brinks I think they are just
being
pissy little prigs.  There is nothing there that can not be discovered
by
other legitimate sources.  The biggest obstacle is that the judge is
being
"educated" by Brink and not by Jim, and I would believe that the judge
is
likely to have a mild prejudice against Jim because of his initial
"failure
to appear" and his getting mad about them not allowing him to respond
in the
same manner as attorneys and others electronically.  (An error
committed by
the clerks which resulted in the failure to appear)  He could ask for
a
change of venue with cause if he felt the judge was acting in a
prejudiced
manner or he could ask for a change of venue without cause.

The following is second hand knowledge acquired from a number of
conversation with judges, lawyers, business owners, and people who
have
represented themselves in court.

I was told once by a judge that you can guarantee prejudice against
you if
you ask for a change of venue.  Any new judge will hold it against you
that
you basically accused another of their brethren of acting in a biased
manner.  I have also been told that the courts in general are very
prejudiced against people who represent themselves.  A person
representing
themself will often receive much LESS latitude than an attorney in the
same
circumstances.  Quite often decisons have been made because not
dotting the
Is and crossing the Ts.  Want to know how prejudiced things can be.
Here in
Yuma there is a public library and a seperate law library.  Most folks
don't
even know about the second and its not particularly easy to find out
about
and visit if you don't know exactly what to ask for.

Anway, MY opinion is Jim is going to get railroaded because Brinks
attorney
is filing stuff, and Jim is not responding properly and paying the
bribe to
a member of the good old boys cl...  er I mean bar association.  I've
read
his (Brink's attorney) stuff and I don't think he is particulary good,
but
he is dogged.  He is also presenting tech stuff in simple language.
By
"dumbing it down" he makes it more understandable and it allows him
to
interject interpretation which is not accurate but presents a bias in
the
favor of his client.  In order to defend his position Jim must
present
images and documentation in a technical (and therefore boring)
manner.  You
guys remember the OJ trial?  The jury and just about everybody else
practically went to sleep during the presentation of DNA evidence.
Its was
a stroke of genius for the defense to simpley ignore most of that and
then
dismiss it in simple langauge rather than respond to it in a
technical
manner.

Bob La Londe
Not a sock puppet