Brinks Attorney Information

All the information posted was obtained by doing a Google search. I am not violating any laws whatsoever. Sometimes public information can be very useful in bring up points. Mr Sableman already made the mistake of quoting USENET threads in his TRO's. USENET messages can be faked, altered, and sent in anonymously. Any clown can write a message and have it say it was sent by me. I get spam emails everyday with my name as the author, even my email address & IP address is on it. It doesn't mean it came from me.

Jim Rojas

Just Look> I have not been able to figure out why you posted this. This guy isn't some

>>

Law suits are divided into parts. One part (after receiving legal service of course) is called discovery. Since Mr. Sableman is making a point with the court about his TRO pleadings, and not a sworn statement, it is not yet subject to the same rules of evidence. It is more or less an indication to you (and the court) of what he may present as evidence if this ever goes to trial. If any of this information is going to be presented at trial then you can (hopefully by then through your attorney) object to it by saying you weren't its author. Mr. Sableman is not going to have to do much to prove it was you however. Since it's a civil case, you will merely get sworn during a discovery session and he asks you questions. You will not get asked the question in a manner that provides you with an opportunity for some coy answer, like the one in your post. That was "Any clown can write a message and have it say it was sent by me." He will more likely ask "are you the clown that sent this?" And if he asks you the question and you don't answer truthfully, it not only ruins your case, but subjects you to criminal sanctions. Ever notice how many political types get sent up for perjury instead of what the original beef was over. He is setting you up and you are knocking yourself down. I knew a guy that tried this back in the late

1970's. He got free room and board at until the early 1990's. By the way, this isn't (yet) a criminal case where you don't have to testify against yourself, unless there is an objection that is upheld by the court, you have to answer the questions asked. FYI attorneys don't ask important questions that they don't already know the answer to as a rule (other than on Perry Mason). If you hire a clever lawyer he or she might try to exclude this stuff you've posted in a procedure called a motion in limine. I'll say it again, not telling the truth about its authorship is not a stunt you want to try to pull in Federal Court. I fear you still don't see the real danger of that gaping maw you're allowing yourself to fall into. Maybe you should take up a different hobby like gathering twigs, and then swatting hungry wild grizzly bears on the nose with them. Getting caught lying in Federal Court or playing with the bears is about the same since either will get you get torn apart in ways you won't want to imagine, although with the bear thing you'll be complaining about paying too much to doctors instead of lawyers.

>>>

DUH

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!

Quote: "Having met you once, and having dealt with you over the years in regards to our mutual board unlocking enterprise, I know you are an honourable person, and I consider you a friend."

Jeeeeeeze!!!!!!!

In this case ..... likely the instrument will have no limit on it's girth or length.... will vary in shape from square to barbed, with no depth graduations on it.

Also, I suspect that the very fact that "justice is blind" will add a certain amount of gore to the process.

K sara, sara .... as dey say.

Jiminex lives for his colonoscopy. It's the only thing that keeps him going between visits to his island beau.

That is one graphically poetic way to describe the exquisite agony of fighting out a protracted law suit. As lawyers like Mr. Sableman probably know too well, even in victory in such a suit (by a single individual against a large corporation) can leave your savings gone, your health in ruins, your spouse as your ex spouse, and any belief in the justice system sent packing with Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Though never having experiened a lawsuit myself, I have observed two Federal actions against two different individuals. I only heard one side of the story, in both cases, but on the face of it, it does appear that the biggest fear that lawyers have, is the loss of "face". And they'll do "anything" to not lose. ANYTHING. Doing the "right thing" or using common sense and being reasonable, and saying "everyone else does it" as a defense, doesn't come into the picture at all.

It's like when your the only one that got a speeding ticket out of a group of speeders. You got the ticket, nothing else matters. If you were speeding, and can't prove otherwise, you're guilty. A lawyer may help, but just going by yourself is almost an automatic guilty verdict.

You have to realize that what they (lawyers) do, is learn their trade, just like any professional. You can't compete with them on a laymans level. They know the rules, shortcuts, methods, of their trade, that you don't. The courts don't have time to teach you how to defend yourself, nor wait for you to stumble through a defense stratagy that has not been prepared according to the protocols of the legal system.

Although Jim seems like a nice enough guy, personally I think he should have stopped doing what ever he was doing, that they didn't like, way back in the beginning and sought another avenue to get around their obviously, idiotic claims. Whether they are right or wrong, they've got the deep pockets to continue long term, which Jim doesn't. The courts will ultimately make judgement against him and there's nothing he will be able to do about it. Laying everything that you've worked for, on the line because you wanted to continue doing something that was known to be an infraction of the law, to begin with, doesn't seem to be worth it to me.

Fighting windmills, is from another era.

Well, it's obvious that the above comment is simply another of your fables ......

However .......Here's a and actual fact:

Since a colonoscopy is recommended every 5 years ....

You'll never have to go for one again.