Brinks v Jim Rojas New Motion

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
    formatting link
    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.)
  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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
formatting link
?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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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 -
  1. 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 ( snipped-for-privacy@tech-man.com) on October 9, 2007. ______/s/ Mark Sableman____________ Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 9 of 9
Reply to
Jim Rojas
Loading thread data ...

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?

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.

Injunction.

computers).2

Reply to
Just Looking

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 Look> >Rojas has displayed a rebellious attitude, hostile to the American legal > system.

Reply to
Jim Rojas

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.

formatting link
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?

formatting link

alt.security.alarms.

untrustworthiness,

Reply to
Just Looking

Maybe I'll just take it to the next level. I'll get my 8 year old grandson to be the cameraman, and make a few Youtube parody movies...coming soon to a 17 inch screen near you..."The Brinks Deliverence" It's based on a true story on what happens to a family who wishes to get out of their PSA without a 60 day written notice. I'll see if Burt Reynolds would like to direct & produce it.

Possible future sequels:

The Brinksfather Brinkstanic On Golden Brinks Brinks Lives Night Of The Living Brinks Brinks Night Fever Brinks Black The Chronicles Of Brinks To Brinks And Back Brinks Wars Brinks Phone Home Brinks The Revenge

Any suggestions are welcome.

Jim Rojas

Just Look>> Sing this to the tune of "Dixie"

Reply to
Jim Rojas

RHC: I am of the same mind as yourself. I really don't know why anyone would want to break the lock code on a proprietary Brinks panel unless they wanted to use it only in local mode. Especially since it's not very useful equipment anyway, and new panels sell for less than $100. Most panels are unlocked for clients so they can be put back on line properly without going to the expense of buying a new board. Brinks equipment to my knowledge is useless for that unless it goes back to Brinks.

But as to your never having heard of anyone actually breaking the lock out code, I can assure you it is done because I do it every day. At the moment, I crack about 10 to 20 boards a week, sent to me by large customers I trust, other dealers I know in the area, but mostly by homeowners moving into newly purchased homes with improperly locked boards (DSC and Paradox only)....(see..

formatting link
However, just like Jim does, we do NOT do it where we know it is in violation of someone's ownership or contract rights. I have over the years worked with Jim and we share mutual secrets on how to do this, and I doubt very much that there is anything to their claims. So I am following this Brinks business with some amount of dismay as to how this foolishness ever started as I'm pretty sure their accusations are baseless, given my knowledge of Jim and his unlocking activities. I think things have gotten out of hand because Jim is pretty pissed off at the moment and is reacting in kind, and more so, because he has seen fit to challenge them in their own game, and they have responded the only way they know how. I will admit, I'm pretty worried about the situation for his sake though. When you choose to sleep with an elephant, you better get out of the way when it rolls over.

I have no doubt that I could crack any Brinks board within minutes given the knowledge and specialized equipment that both Jim and I, and one other that I know of, possess. The bigger question is, why would we want to even bother cracking their shit !! But then again, if they continue to persist in this foolishness, I just might start where Jim left off. Then they can start on me up here in Canada.

I hope Brinks backs off before this blows up in their faces. They may win this fight, but they will surely lose the battle......

Reply to
tourman

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

Reply to
Jim Rojas

According to Brinks, all these threads is just me and my sock puppets... I do admit I do often talk to myself, but not since I got back on my meds... :)

Jim Rojas

tourman wrote:

Reply to
Jim Rojas

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks instead of the security company that was servicing it before.

Reply to
Crash Gordon

It seems to me that they're just plain blind to the fact that even if they do pull this off with Jim, every alarm company in the world will use this information to sell against them. There's not an alarm company in existance that wouldn't be happy as hell to take the results of them winning a case like this against some little guy down in Florida and jamming right back up their ass everytime they came up against Brinks in doing estimates.

And this would be something that would be used for years and years. It's just never going to go away. Your grandson will be using it.

Compared to what little damage ..... if any, that Jim "might" be doing is going to be nothing compared to the long term damage in lost sales that winning this thing, could do to them.

It makes you think about what would happen if someone went to all the websites of all the alarm associations, obtained via the NBFAA website, and getting the e-mail address of alarm companys across the nation and sending them a description of what Brinks does to their competition, inviting them to use it in their sales presentations. No lies, no exaggeration, just the facts. I'd bet that would get some attention. Just email that out a few times a year ............. and telling whoever, to send it to others ........ forever.

Talk about a dip is sales ..... HA!

Reply to
Jim

Feel a little better now? :)

Jim Rojas

Crash Gord> I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in

Reply to
Jim Rojas

Brinks has an office in Vancouver. It's a remodeled fishing hole hut. Be careful they don't sue you in Canadian court for knowing too much.

Coming up next...THE BRINKS COURT

Announcer: This is Mr Sableman, He is suing Jim Rojas because he knows in his gut that Mr Rojas is stealing all of Brinks customers, leaving Brinks without a pot to piss in....This is Mr Rojas, he contents that he has never been to Texas, so how was he doing this? By magic? come on now! Jim Rojas claims Brinks is just out to get him, and they can't prove a damn thing, so the plaintiff is just making things up as he goes along...he is accused of tortuous interference of all Brinks PSA agreements in the USA. Stay tuned for "The Case of Tortuous Floridian"

3 Minute Commercial Break

Bailiff: All rise! This is the case of Brinks Versus Jim Rojas, case docket # 1817659

Judge: Thank you Bailiff. You may all be seated...Mr Sableman, you are suing Mr Rojas for over 1 million dollars, is that right?

Sableman: Good morning Judge. First off, may I say that you are looking exceptionally lovely today.

Judge: Thank you. Please continue...

Sableman: Your Honor, Mr Rojas says he knows alot about electronics, and our panels are electronic. We have a sworn statement from our token electronics expert Mr David Yokey, that will prove our panels are indeed electronic. We have lost all of our customers. Mr Rojas runs an website that unlocks panels, and he also does panel downloading for a rediciulously low price. He also buys and sells our panels on the internet, he voted for Gorge Bush. And with that being said, we must assume he stole all our customers.

Judge: So you are saying you never lost a customer before?

Sableman: Yes your Honor, we never lost a customer before. It was only when Mr Rojas started his online business that we started losing customers.

Judge: Ok. Mr Rojas, what's your story?

Rojas: I didn't do it.

Judge: Is that so?

Rojas: yes ma'am.

Judge: We'll see about that. Mr Sableman you represent Brinks. Is that Brinks Home Security?

Sableman: Yes your Honor.

Judge: I have Brinks in my home. I never used it because it came with the house, and I refused to sign into a long term contract. I'm a lawyer too you know.

Sableman: But that's our equipment your Honor. You have to give it back.

Judge: But it came with the house when I bought it?

Sableman: It doesn't matter your Honor. You still have to give it back. Our company only leases the equipment. Didn't you read our Protective Service Agreement? So you have to give it back. I'll have a technician stop by later today.

Judge: Good luck with that Pal!

Sableman: I am sorry your honor. Anyway, we have no real verified consumer complaints, No BBB reports that we can't explain away with a blank check...no one can touch us your Honor. We have been in business since 1859.

Judge: Mr Rojas. Do you have proof that you didn't do any of the things in which Mr Sableman claims you have done?

Mr Rojas: No Ma'am

Judge: Boy, your just a bundle of information aren't you?

Mr Rojas: No Ma'am

Judge: Well, I tell you...I have to judge this case on the preponderance of the evidence provided to me. And since you Mr Rojas haven't said much or even close to anything at all, I am starting to wonder about you.

Mr Rojas: Yes your Honor

Judge: Shut up! I had enough of you. Mr Sableman...Do you have anything else?

Sableman: Yes. I have a stack of documents here for you to look at your honor.

20 second pause

Judge: I will retire to my chambers and render my verdict.

3 Minute Commercial Break

Judge: I reached my decision. Mr Rojas. I read Brinks PSA. And I have to tell you, It's rock solid. Even I would have a tough time getting out of that contract.

Sableman: Your Honor, Jim Rojas also operates a Canadian operation in which he unlocked, and stole Brinks only Canadian customer, thus again engaging in tortuous interference of our PSA.

Judge: He did what?

Rojas: I did?

Sableman: I assume you did.

Rojas: Then I guess it must be true.

Judge: Judgement for the Plaintiff in the amount of 1 million dollars. Next case.

Rojas: But your Honor...

Judge: Bailiff, escort Mr Rojas outside the courtroom before I hold him in contempt.

Bailiff: You heard the Judge. Let's go assclown.

Announcer: And that ends this case of The Brinks Court. Let's standby while the litigants leave the courtroom.

10 Second Pause

Announcer: Mr Rojas, why didn't you present a better case?

Rojas: I though that being innocent was enough. I don't even know where Vancouver is. I didn't know I that their lawyers had so many sneaky ways of twisting the truth to get the judge to see things only their way.

Announcer: That's too bad. Next time hire a lawyer, you schmuck.

Rojas: Ok I will.

Accouncer. Please step this way. We have some documents for you to sign...

5 Second Pause

Accouncer: Mr Sableman, are you pleased with the outcome?

Sableman: No, but I knew we would win. We have more money, so by default we win.

Accouncer: Is that really fair?

Sableman: Who cares.

Accouncer: Thank you and please step this way. Let that be a lesson to all you alarm dealers out there. The next time that you see a Brinks sign or sticker anywhere, you better run the other way.

tourman wrote:

Reply to
Jim Rojas

You just don't seem to get it, Jim. Every word you write here will be quoted back to the judge in an attempt to make you look bad. The more crap you sling at Brink's, the worse it will make you look. If you're going to piss people off, at least wait until after a judgment is entered against you.

You're playing a game of poker, only you think you're playing blackjack. The judge doesn't care what you write here, except insofar as it makes you look like a bad person. She doesn't read this newsgroup. She only reads what people put in the motions they send her. You're not sending her any, so she's only reading Brink's side of the story. That's your fault, not Sableman's. It's not his job to present a fair and balanced view of things. It's his job to represent Brink's.

You're in the fix you're in because you didn't answer the lawsuit when you were supposed to. The judge has given you an opportunity to make one last legal challenge before you get hammered, and you are apparently wasting it.

In short, Brink's is following the rules of the litigation game, and you are not. All the bitching and moaning here and on your website won't change the outcome. You have about one week left to file a good legal argument with the court on why a Texas court doesn't have the authority to enter a judgment against you. Don't blow the opportunity. See if you can hire a lawyer for the limited purpose of preparing this motion; he doesn't have to represent you for the entire case. The money you spend on lawyers now is money Brink's can't take away from you later.

For the benefit of the Brink's lawyers who are reading this: there are multiple Nomen Nescios posting messages here. This one, I assure you, is not Jim Rojas posting under an alias, and your assertions that Jim is posting under aliases are not only without foundation, they border on the ridiculous.

Let's see you quote that to the judge.

Reply to
Nomen Nescio

Sableman's an idiot. "Edmond Fitzgerald" (the individual I told to go back to posting as himself) posts from around Nashville Tennessee. Anyone with a modicum of tool skills would be able to use a small program Microsoft supplies with their operating system called "tracert" to find that out.

As for "tech help", it's been around for years. I'm surprised a company like Brinks would stoop to hire a legal representative that would lie like this.

I think it's time Jim "mirrored" his site offshore.

Reply to
Frank Olson

Wouldn't taking screen shots of someone else's copyrighted material constitute a crime? The whole no use/reproduction with out written consent thing.

Reply to
Tommy

They had it posted on their website for any and all to download at one time. now all of a sudden its top secret?

Reply to
Slob

Correct. I am not a ship that sank on Lake Superior or Jim Rojas. What I am is an advocate of reading recurring services contracts before you sign them so you won't have to all that pitiful whining on Usenet or talk radio about how you've been screwed by some unfair company.

One more time here's the simple message: Read the contract and don't sign it if you can't or don't want to live with it. Abiding by contracts is an important part of civilization.

Reply to
Edmond Fitzgerald

Almost.

Reply to
Crash Gordon

Slob wrote in news:H14Pi.153$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews2.bellsouth.net:

Not Brinks. Jim's tech help. Them taking screenshots and using them without permission would violate his copyright wouldn't it?

Reply to
Tommy

Wonder if they know what/who Nomen Nescio even is - actually they should right?

Reply to
Crash Gordon

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.