Re: Brinks v Jim Rojas New Motion

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Sing this to the tune of "Dixie"

I tried to post the wav file, but the mic blew up. I always thought I should
be on a stage somewhere. One is leaving soon and I think I'll be on it.

You know Jim you're just not showing enough Anti-American bias. Try harder.
You know people are watching. Couldn't you write some lyrics to an old
subversive Cuban revolutionary song instead? Someone has to know at least
one or two of those old songs near your neck of the woods. If not try this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMcENXlxyg Maybe you could do a find Waldo
kind of thing in the background? Your hiding with a panel and some unlock
codes somewhere in those pictures aren't you?



"Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:470C25A3.9070008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sing this to the tune of "Dixie"
>
>
> Brinkie Man
>
> O, I wish I was in the land of Texas
> Laptop & tools by my side
> Look away! Look away!
> Look away! Brinkie Man.
>
> I have all the trusty lockout codes
> For every panel ever made
> Look away! Look away!
> Look away! Brinkie Man.
>
> Chorus:
> O, I wish I worked for Brinkie!
> Hooray! Hooray!
> In Dallas Land I'll take my stand
> To enforce our PSA all over the land
> Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
> Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
>
> Jim Rojas has a real good notion,
> Yet Mr Sableman is filing endless motions
> Look away! Look away!
> Look away! Brinkie Man.
>
> But when Jim tried to take the panel over
> He smiled and said s Vista20P is on order
> Look away! Look away!
> Look away! Brinkie Man.
>
> Chorus:
> O, I wish I worked for Brinkie!
> Hooray! Hooray!
> In Dallas Land I'll take my stand
> To enforce our PSA all over the land
> Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
> Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
>
> Before Jim could remove the panel and put it in the corner,
> Mr Sableman said wait! he'll be right over
> Look away! Look away!
> Look away! Brinkie Man.
>
> Mr Sableman flashed them their signed PSA
> Jim then packed his bags and went on his way
> Look away! Look away!
> Look away! Brinkie Man.
>
> Chorus:
> O, I wish I worked for Brinkie!
> Hooray! Hooray!
> In Dallas Land I'll take my stand
> To enforce our PSA all over the land
> Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
> Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
>
>
> Jim Rojas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just Looking wrote:
> >  >Rojas has displayed a rebellious attitude, hostile to the American
legal
> > system.
> >
> > Okay time for your confession here Jim. Was it the 'Viva Fidel' poster
or
> > have you been flying the Confederate Battle Flag again? Once they made
it
> > illegal to burn crosses, you just haven't been yourself. It's okay, you
can
> > still burn your old draft card if you want to.
> > I see you've kicked sand in his face and now he is crying, just like you
> > were. Are you happy with yourself now? It seems they're going to try to
come
> > and take your toys away. Better head down to Good Will and get yourself
a
> > couple of rooms full of junk, making certain nothing is RoHS compliant.
> > Maybe stock up on the old 19 inch and 21 inch models especially. Those
> > things weigh a ton, and with the Florida heat someone is going to end up
> > filing a medical claim. Once they haul it all of you can call the EPA
for
> > failure to store and dispose of the equipment properly. Too bad you
never
> > did any work at SCIF centers, military bases and such, then you could
claim
> > there are national security items on your computer. Then the Marshals
could
> > show up on one side to get it and the FBI on the other to stop it. I
wonder
> > what would happen?
> >
> >> 15. Plaintiff requests that this motion be considered on an >expedited
> > emergency basis because of the irreparable harm >involved in violation
of
> > the Court?s  Preliminary Injunction and >intentional dissemination of
Brink?
> > s trade secrets
> >
> > Run Forrest, run. It seems that if you've already spilled the beans,
your
> > computers aren't the place the information is stored on anymore. Well at
> > least get your wife to have some water, tea, Cokes, cookies and finger
> > sandwiches for the nice gentlemen when they come to collect the gear.
You
> > should be happy for Brinks. I can only imagine what this whole thing is
> > going to cost them. It might be time to get that Che tee shirt and start
> > heading back the other 90 miles, even if they take your passport. What
do
> > you think about calling yourself 'The Havana Tech Man' You could post
> > information on how to 'unleash the revolution in your alarm system!'.
Sounds
> > catchy. Avoid freight costs and get more old panels to sent to you on
every
> > changing tide. You'd be in unlock heaven!
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > "Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:470BFCC8.4080809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> 4599823
> >> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> >> NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
> >> DALLAS DIVISION
> >> Brink?s Home Security, Inc., ::
> >> Plaintiff, :
> >> : Case No.: 3:07CV0437-B
> >> v. ::
> >> Jim Rojas, ::
> >> Defendant. :
> >> EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
> >> AND FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
> >> Plaintiff Brink?s Home Security, Inc., by its undersigned attorneys,
> >> requests that
> >> the Court hold Defendant Jim Rojas in contempt for violation of the
> >> Court?s July 17, 2007
> >> Preliminary Injunction, and take appropriate protective steps to
enforce
> >> the Preliminary
> >> Injunction.
> >> In support, Plaintiff states:
> >> Rojas? Violations of Injunction
> >> 1. The Court?s Preliminary Injunction prohibits Rojas from publishing,
> >> distributing or disseminating Brink?s trade secrets, including ?methods
> >> of circumventing the
> >> lock out codes on Brink?s control panels.?
> >> 2. Rojas has recently posted on his website, located at
www.tech-man.com,
> >> a software program titled ?Tech Help.? The Tech Help program contains
> >> instructions which
> >> clearly describe how to circumvent the lock out protection on Brink?s
> >> Home Security control
> >> panels. Plaintiff has prepared a Declaration of David Yorkey, Brink?s
> >> Senior Manager of
> >> Product Technology, describing his recent review and analysis of the
> >> Tech Help program, and
> >> setting forth screen shots from that program. By separate motion,
> >> Plaintiff has requested leave
> >> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 9
> >> 4599823 - 2 -
> >> to file the Declaration separately in an ex parte submission under
seal.
> >> (As set forth in that
> >> motion, because the Yorkey declaration identifies the trade secret
> >> information disclosed by
> >> Rojas, a public filing of the declaration, or sharing of it with Rojas,
> >> would in Brink?s opinion
> >> defeat the purpose of this motion.)
> >> 3. Rojas clearly knowingly and intentionally posted these materials in
> >> violation of the Preliminary Injunction. As previous filings in this
> >> Court by both Brink?s and
> >> Rojas have made clear, Rojas takes a hostile and antagonistic attitude
> >> toward this Court and
> >> the legal process. In various statements, some posted on Internet news
> >> groups, some sent by
> >> e-mail to Brink?s and the court, and some directly filed with the
Court,
> >> Rojas has displayed a
> >> rebellious attitude, hostile to the American legal system.
> >> 4. As set forth in Plaintiff?s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
> >> (Docket #15), Rojas has sent multiple e-mails to Plaintiff?s counsel
> >> stating or indicating that
> >> he intended to ignore, defy and/or taunt Brink?s, its counsel and the
> >> Court and judicial process.
> >> In one of his e-mails, dated June 30, 2007, he stated that he intended
> >> to publish Brink?s trade
> >> secret information and make it available to all alarm dealers, together
> >> with ?step by step
> >> instructions? on how to circumvent Brink?s lock out codes on its
control
> >> panels. Brink?s filed
> >> its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in response to this threat.
> >> Rojas then appeared by
> >> telephone in a hearing on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
> >> and, at that hearing,
> >> essentially retracted his threats, stated that he did not intend to
> >> disseminate Brink?s trade
> >> secrets, and stated that he would consent to an Order of this court
> >> prohibiting him from doing
> >> such. The Court then entered its Temporary Restraining Order (Docket
> >> #16), which was later
> >> amended to become a Preliminary Injunction (Docket #22).
> >> 5. In August 2007, Plaintiff was approached by a third party who stated
> > that
> >> he was a business acquaintance of Rojas and hoped to facilitate a
> >> settlement of this matter.
> >> Brink?s participated in settlement discussions with Rojas through this
> >> intermediary, and was
> >> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 2 of 9
> >> 4599823 - 3 -
> >> told at one point by the intermediary that a settlement agreement had
> >> been reached. However,
> >> the intermediary later reported that Rojas had changed his mind and
> >> would not agree to the
> >> settlement. During the approximately five weeks when the settlement
> >> discussions were going
> >> on, Brink?s did not receive e-mails from Rojas, and in addition,
various
> >> Internet news groups
> >> (where Rojas had in the past posted many messages concerning Brink?s
and
> >> this case) showed
> >> no such activity. However, shortly before the intermediary reported to
> >> Brink?s that Rojas was
> >> backing out of the settlement agreement, Brink?s began receiving a
> >> flurry of new e-mail
> >> messages, all in the hostile style of Rojas? e-mails, although the
> >> e-mails all came through
> >> anonymizing portals and bore various signatures, most of which, like
> >> ?Noman Nescio? and
> >> ?Non sciveteni? are well known synonyms for ?Anonymous? or ?No Name.?
It
> >> is apparent
> >> that Rojas authored and sent these e-mails.
> >> 6. Last week, Rojas further escalated the matter by posting various
> >> messages on the Internet news group alt.security.alarms, some in his
own
> >> name and some sent
> >> through anonymizing portals using anonymous names. Among other things,
a
> >> new message
> >> strand entitled ?Brink?s BHS 2000D Hack? was created on
> >> alt.security.alarms on October 3,
> >> 2007 at 1:17 p.m. through a posting by ?Anonymous.? In the initial
post,
> >> ?Anonymous?
> >> responded to a November 24, 2004 post by someone seeking information
> >> regarding use of a
> >> Brink?s BHS-2000D control panel. (A printout of this message strand is
> >> attached hereto as
> >> Exhibit A.) ?Anonymous? responded that the November 2004 poster only
> >> needed a
> >> programmer ?that will change the values on the chip.? A few minutes
> >> after the initial posting
> >> by ?Anonymous,? ?Jim Rojas? responded by clarifying the parts number of
> >> the Brink?s chip.
> >> Rojas, ?Anonymous? [or ?Anonymous Sender?] and two other posters,
> >> ?George Orwell? and
> >> ?Noman Nescio,? engaged in exchanges over the next few hours in which
> >> they together
> >> provided information on circumventing the lock-out codes on the Brink?s
> >> Home Security
> >> system. It is apparent that this posting was initiated, written, and
> >> orchestrated by Rojas in
> >> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 3 of 9
> >> 4599823 - 4 -
> >> order to harm Brink?s, by disseminating instructions on circumventing
> >> lock-out codes on
> >> Brink?s control panels in violation of this Court?s Preliminary
> > Injunction.
> >> 7. In addition to the orchestrated message board dialogue with
anonymous
> >> versions of himself, Rojas more directly violated the Preliminary
> >> Injunction by creating and
> >> posting to his website a software program that contained explicit
> >> directions on how to
> >> circumvent the Brink?s lock out codes. Rojas publicized this program
> >> (using his own name) on
> >> the ?Brink?s BHS 2000D Hack ? message strand on the
alt.security.alarms.
> >> message board
> >> posting on October 5. As a result of that posting, Brink?s reviewed the
> >> program and
> >> determined, as set forth in the Declaration of David Yorkey, that that
> >> program contained
> >> explicit instructions on circumventing Brink?s lock out codes in
> >> violation of the Preliminary
> >> Injunction.
> >> 8. In short, it is apparent that Rojas is intentionally violating the
> >> Court?s
> >> Preliminary Injunction. Everything about his recent activities is
> >> consistent with malicious,
> >> intentional defiance of the rights of Brink?s and the Court?s
> >> Preliminary Injunction. Rojas
> >> stayed silent when he was considering a settlement with Brink?s. When,
> >> for whatever reason,
> >> he decided not to settle, he began yet another flurry of hostile
e-mails
> >> and postings. In his
> >> various postings, both to the alt.security.alarms news group and to his
> >> own website, he
> >> followed through on the threat he made in June to reveal Brink?s trade
> >> secret information. His
> >> apparent use of aliases and anonymizing services only highlights his
> >> knowledge that the actions
> >> he has taken are illegal.1 These actions directly violate and defy this
> >> Court?s Preliminary
> >> 1 It is not entirely clear whether Rojas is truly attempting to hide
his
> >> identity or just engaging in childish
> >> gamesmanship by using the aliases and anonymizing services. In one
> >> recent message board strand, titled
> >> ?Brinks Home Security Evergreen Clauses,? populated by messages between
> >> Rojas, ?George Orwell? and
> >> ?Harry Houdini,? one poster advised Rojas: ?Speaking of ?bottom
> >> feeders,? perhaps you should to back to
> >> posting as yourself ?before you become confused again.? See
> >> alt.security.alarms, at
> >> http://groups.google.com, ?Brinks Home Security Evergreen Clauses.?
> >> Whether he is attempting to hide
> >> his actions or simply amuse himself in connection with his violation of
> >> the Court?s order, it is clear that
> >> Rojas is thumbing his nose at the judicial system.
> >> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 4 of 9
> >> 4599823 - 5 -
> >> Injunction. Moreover, in view of the fact that Rojas personally told
the
> >> Court on July 10, 2007
> >> that he would not follow through on his threats and that he would
comply
> >> with the Court
> >> Order, it is clear that Rojas can not be trusted.
> >> 9. As further evidence of Rojas? intention to deliberately violate the
> >> Preliminary Injunction, on October 2, 2007, he posted a message to the
> >> alt.security.alarms
> >> newsgroup that stated, in part:
> >> I'll start by adding everything I know about Brinks security in my tech
> >> help program, which is MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Feel free to file
> >> injunctions against my intellectual property. Please, I can really use
> >> the extra money. Maybe then I can afford to hire a lawyer to get a
class
> >> action lawsuit going. Then, I will create a website in some third world
> >> country that is not bound by any of Mr Sablemans assumptions or
motions.
> >> I was thinking BRINKS-SUCKS.COM. I'll get back to you on that.
> >> (Copy attached as Exhibit B; emphasis added.) And on October 7, 2007,
he
> >> sent an email to
> >> various recipients in which he stated:
> >> I did ask Brinks numerous times to prove that I stole any equipment,
> >> programmers, etc. I even asked them to produce one of their customers
that
> > I
> >> supposedly assisted to switchover to another monitoring station, or who
I
> >> assisted to unlock their panel. But they really don't care to hear
about
> >> that. At
> >> this point in time, I really don't care either way. I wasted enough
time
> >> filing
> >> pointless motions to the court. It all falls on deaf ears anyway. So
> >> instead, I
> >> will continue to use the only avenue I have to level the playing
> > field...THE
> >> INTERNET.
> >> (Copy attached as Exhibit C; emphasis added.) These messages evidence
an
> >> intent to violate
> >> Brink?s rights by disseminating Brink?s trade secrets over the
Internet,
> >> and using the Internet to
> >> evade the power of United States courts.
> >> 10. For these reasons, Brink?s requests that Rojas be immediately held
in
> >> contempt, that the Court take appropriate action to prevent further
> >> violations of its
> >> Preliminary Injunction by Rojas, and that the Court appropriately
punish
> >> Rojas for his
> >> violations so far, and compensate Brink?s for the damage caused by
> >> Rojas? violations.
> >> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 5 of 9
> >> 4599823 - 6 -
> >> Court?s Personal Jurisdiction Over Rojas
> >> 11. This Court clearly has jurisdiction over Rojas and should not delay
> > full
> >> and effective contempt proceedings against him. Brink?s recent brief
> >> regarding personal
> >> jurisdiction, Docket # 31, fully explains the legal basis for this
> >> Court?s jurisdiction over Rojas.
> >> Moreover, personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction,
can
> >> be waived, and in this
> >> case, Rojas, by voluntarily appearing herein, has clearly waived any
> >> objections he might
> >> otherwise have to personal jurisdiction.
> >> 12. Rojas studiously avoided appearing in this Court for the first
three
> >> months of this action. However, after Brink?s filed its Motion for
> >> Default Judgment,(Docket
> >> #13), and the Court sought a response from Rojas (Docket #14), Rojas
> >> then appeared in the
> >> case, submitting filings through which he sought to avoid having a
> >> default judgment entered
> >> against him. While his filings were not conventional, they clearly
> >> constituted an appearance
> >> under the law. See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. M.T.S. Enters., Inc., 811
> >> F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir.
> >> 1987) (finding waiver of a defect in personal jurisdiction and noting
"a
> >> party need not
> >> necessarily file an answer in federal court to put in an appearance for
> >> purposes of Rule 12(h):
> >> 'An appearance may also arise by implication from a defendant's
seeking,
> >> taking, or agreeing to
> >> some step or proceeding in the cause beneficial to himself or
> >> detrimental to plaintiff other than
> >> one contesting only the jurisdiction or by reason of some act or
> >> proceeding recognizing the case
> >> as in court.'"); MCW, Inc. v. Badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C., No.:
> >> 3:02-CV-2727-G, 2004 WL
> >> 833595 at *4-5 (N.D. Tex. April 19, 2004) (denying motion to dismiss
for
> >> lack of personal
> >> jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(1) because defendants waived the defense
> >> by not raising it in their
> >> first Rule 12(b) motion); O'Brien v. R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc., 998
> >> F.2d 1394 (7th Cir. 1993)
> >> (waiver of challenge to personal jurisdiction by not raising the issue
> >> in defendant's motion to
> >> vacate an entry of default). Rojas cannot have it both ways, first by
> >> appearing in the case and
> >> seeking to avoid the default judgment, and second by asserting in the
> >> face of imminent adverse
> >> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 6 of 9
> >> 4599823 - 7 -
> >> action against him that he is not subject to the Court?s jurisdiction.
> >> Once he appears, as he did
> >> in June 2007, he is fully in the case, and fully subject to all orders
> >> and judgments of the Court.
> >> Indeed, there can be no doubt as to the validity of the Preliminary
> >> Injunction against Rojas,
> >> because Rojas, in the telephone hearing on the original Temporary
> >> Restraining Order, explicitly
> >> told the Court that he would not object to the Order, and would comply
> >> with it. See
> >> Temporary Restraining Order, Docket #16 (?the Defendant poses no
> >> objection to the relief
> >> sought?). Again, one who has consented to a Court Order cannot later
> >> contest its jurisdictional
> >> effect.
> >> 13. In short, there is no question as to this Court?s personal
> >> jurisdiction over
> >> Rojas for all purposes, and especially for purposes of full enforcement
> >> of its Preliminary
> >> Injunction.
> >> Relief Requested
> >> 14. Plaintiff requests that the Court either find Rojas in contempt
based
> >> upon the evidence set forth herein, or promptly set a telephonic
hearing
> >> to address this motion.
> >> 15. If and when the Court finds Rojas in contempt, Plaintiff requests
that
> >> the Court:
> >> a. Instruct the United States Marshall to immediately seize all
computers
> >> and communication devices located on Rojas? premises at 8002 Cornwall
> > Lane,
> >> Tampa, Florida 33615-4604, in order to prevent further violations of
the
> >> Preliminary
> >> Injunction. In light of Rojas? record of defiance and
untrustworthiness,
> >> a seizure of the
> >> instrumentalities of his violations is necessary to prevent further
> >> harm. Cf., United
> >> States v. Mitnick, 145 F.3d 1342 (9th Cir 1998) (affirming conditions
of
> >> supervisory
> >> release which restricted connected computer hacker?s access to
> > computers).2
> >> 2 If the computers are seized, Brink?s should be permitted to have an
> >> independent expert preserve the
> >> contents of the computers, by taking mirror images of their hard
drives,
> >> so that such evidence is fully
> >> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 7 of 9
> >> 4599823 - 8 -
> >> b. Instruct the United States Marshall to serve a copy of its Order on
> >> Rojas?
> >> Internet service provider, Ecommerce Corporation, d/b/a 1X Web Hosting,
> >> 247 Mitch
> >> Lane, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240, instructing it (1) not to
facilitate
> >> any violations of
> >> the Preliminary Injunction by Rojas, and specifically to not assist
> >> Rojas in any manner
> >> in disseminating instructions regarding circumvention of Brink?s lock
> >> out-codes, or any
> >> other content that would violate the Preliminary Injunction, and (2) to
> >> hold in escrow
> >> all revenue due Rojas pending a final determination by this Court of
> >> these contempt
> >> proceedings and any fines imposed therein.
> >> c. Award Brink?s a compensatory fine of at least $10,000, or such other
> >> amount as the Court deems appropriate in the circumstances, to
> >> compensate Brink?s
> >> for its actual loss due to the violation, plus Brink?s reasonable
> >> expenses including
> >> attorney's fees in preparing for the contempt proceeding. See Sebastian
> >> v. Texas Dep't
> >> of Corrections, 558 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. Tex. 1983); Cook v. Ochsner
> >> Found. Hospital,
> >> 559 F.2d 270 (5th Cir. 1977).
> >> d. Impose an appropriate punishment on Rojas for his intentional
> >> violations of the Preliminary Injunction.
> >> preserved in the event that it becomes necessary in further proceedings
> >> to determine the full extent to
> >> which Rojas has violated the injunction and/or violated Brink?s rights
> >> as alleged in the Complaint. Based
> >> on Rojas? threats and conduct so far in this litigation, it is clear
> >> that there is a significant danger of
> >> destruction of evidence, and accordingly it is essential to preserve
key
> >> evidence.
> >> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 8 of 9
> >> 4599823 - 9 -
> >> 15. Plaintiff requests that this motion be considered on an expedited
> >> emergency basis because of the irreparable harm involved in violation
of
> >> the Court?s
> >> Preliminary Injunction and intentional dissemination of Brink?s trade
> >> secrets.
> >> Respectfully submitted,
> >> By: _____/s Mark Sableman________
> >> Mark Sableman
> >> Dean L. Franklin
> >> Timothy D. Krieger
> >> THOMPSON COBURN LLP
> >> One US Bank Plaza
> >> St. Louis, MO 63101
> >> (314) 552-6000
> >> (314) 552-7000 (fax)
> >> and
> >> Christina I. Sookdeo
> >> Texas Bar No. 24028001
> >> Brink?s Home Security, Inc.
> >> 8880 Esters Boulevard
> >> Irving, TX 75063
> >> (972) 871-3503
> >> (972) 871-3366 (fax)
> >> Attorneys for Plaintiff
> >> Brink?s Home Security, Inc.
> >> Certificate of Service
> >> I hereby certify that this document will be served upon Defendant Jim
> >> Rojas by PDF
> >> email (jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx) on October 9, 2007.
> >> ______/s/ Mark Sableman____________
> >> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 9 of 9
> >
> >