Re: What's a Brinks 4000?

["Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx>]

For what its worth, as a layman my take on it is this.

You're going to Texas to answer a contempt motion that claims you violated
the courts preliminary injunction, I doubt very much that you will be
allowed to present anything pertaining to the original case.
As I see it, you have to convince the judge that you haven't violated the
courts preliminary injunction. That's it, nothing else at this point is
relevant and without adequate legal representation I fear the chances of
that happening are somewhere between slim and nil.
So to a certain extent its probably true that the ruling will likely be the
same if you go or not, but that doesn't mean the outcome will be the same,
my guess is that the repurcussions will be much greater if you don't show.

I wish you the best of luck with it Jim, but my advice, again for what its
worth,  is to stop fucking about,  wake up, smell the coffee, get legal
representation and try to mitigate the situation as best you can.

Doug
.

--

"Jim Rojas" <jrojas+tech-man.com> wrote in message
news:47180044$0$7507$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
>
> Jim Rojas
>
>
>
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> It would really help if Crash would send you the original.  Sableman's
>>> way to sharp to let you submit a printout from a file sharing website.
>>> Heck...  if you could get your mitts on a blank form, you'd blow him out
>>> of the water.
>>
>> You guys don't understand.  The facts of this case no longer matter.
>> When
>> Jim failed to file a timely answer to the lawsuit, and was unable to
>> convince the judge to allow him to file late, all of the factual
>> allegations in Brinks' complaint automatically became true:  Jim is
>> considered to have admitted them.  Brink's no longer has to prove them.
>>
>> Jim is left with a technical legal argument: that a Texas court shouldn't
>> have the authority to enter a judgment against him.  He needs a lawyer to
>> make that argument for him.
>>