Brinks Home Security v Jim Rojas

Doubt all you like.

Jim, You seem to have led a charmed life that has never taken you down the yellow brick road to the Courthouse, especially the Federal Courthouse. Unfortunately for me I have gone down that road too many times. I have had

11 lawyers working on cases for me all at one time. You finally realize how far you gone when lawyers take you into their office and question you about legal procedures WITHOUT sending you a bill. In other words you have become a resource for them. I mentioned (guessed) at a $25K retainer in other posts as a starting point for legal fees. Now you have confirmed that as a valid number. I know this $25K sounds like a lot of money (and it is) but this is really chump change for any scrap involving the Federal Court System, especially against an adversary that has its own internal legal force (more or less). These guys can make a lot of work (and money for themselves) for the other side by filing motion after motion. Billing by the hour generates cash for Brinks' attorneys but will erode your $25K retainer well before discovery is over, let alone trial. Depending on Brinks' appetite for escalating this it could be a lot more than $25K before appeals begin. It is like that old car repair commercial. "You can pay me now or you can pay me later". You can try an end run and file for Federal Bankruptcy protection PRIOR to any judgments being entered against you. By going into Bankruptcy you will receive protection from the court from any litigation efforts of Brinks against you. In fact if you hire a real bastard bankruptcy attorney he can actually get Brinks' attorneys tossed into jail themselves when they continue to hassle you (which they will try to do because that is how they bill Brinks for their services). If you file Chapter 11 or 13 you could so foul up Brinks plans for you that they'll want to reach some other "accommodation" with you and the Bankruptcy Court. Once you have that "accommodation" in hand you can postpone and eventually dismiss your own Bankruptcy almost as if it never happened. One needs to be VERY careful in this strategy since you could go to jail yourself for using the inadvertent consequences of filing Bankruptcy as a legal defense strategy. However a pissed off attorney with plenty of years of experience in Bankruptcy (and plenty of free liquor) can be a gold mine as to how to pursue these guys via the legal back door for cheap. Brinks knows full well the legal techniques for derailing their plans for you. Making the right legal moves will signal to Brinks that you know too, and the party will be over for Brinks. Brinks attorneys' aren't out to win so much as they're out to bill. When you take the cash away from an attorney you take everything away. There are two things that are simply poison for an attorney. One is no cash (that is like the garlic for a vampire) and the other is they HATE to lose (that is the stake through the heart for the vampire). Bankruptcy means they can't get money (because they can't bill for attacking you anymore), and they can't win (because they can't attack you anymore). It is like removing AC and battery from an alarm system. They'll move on to figure their next payday strategy for fleecing their own client (Brinks) with some other trumped up legal BS. Attorneys are easy to defeat once you figure out the technique for cutting off funds, or their access to funds, and making victory impossible to obtain or (worse) even define. They will never stick to any case based on "principles" (they simply have none), or for being "in it" for the client. Looking for an attorney that sides with you and takes the case based on its merits is like looking for a virgin in a whorehouse. Its fruitless of course, and only an entertaining search only if you like attorneys or w***es, both in the business of screwing people for (and out of) money, and each using the exact same moral code. You might hear some type of BS "good guy" rhetoric from time to time from an attorney, but that would really be a smokescreen for hiding the fact that they have been had (financially) and the court WON'T let them off the case they accepted. A real attorney would never dispute what I have said here (mostly because there is no money to be made by doing so) but also because it is so easy to list names, dates, times, places, faces, and cases to support what I have said. Think of what you have to do to win with the resources you have at hand. You'll never win if you fight on Brinks terms, and on Brinks turf, using only your own efforts.

"Jim Rojas" wrote in message news:4698ebf7$0$31225$ snipped-for-privacy@roadrunner.com...

WELL said!!

| > Jim Rojas | >

| >

| >

| >

| > newb wrote: | >> Jim Rojas wrote: | >>> I have contact many attorneys. Each one either requires a huge retainer, | >>

| >>

| >> how huge? | |

The problem with filing for bankruptcy is it ruins your credit for years to come. Once you've done it you can't get a decent loan rate on anything. Credit card processing companies may refuse to work with your website. Also, bankrupptcy does not protect any liquid assets or chatel property you may have. In Florida your homestead ("house" for all you Texans and other species of snowbird) is sacrosanct but almost nothing else is.

Bankruptcy is not a shelter beneath which you can hunker down with your cash and other personal property. Anyone who succeeds against you in court will have to wait his turn behind other creditors who will get first dibs on your assets. When it's all done you'll have your home and not mch more. Also, filing for bankruptcy right after a default judgment has been obtained against you will not sit well with the courts. The federal court can decide that the bankruptcy filing is just a ploy and over ride it.

What Jim Rojas really should do is hire a competent attorney and then follow his advice.

There are what are called automatic stays when you file for bankruptcy. Automatic protection from Brinks is included in that realm of protection. Yes, one court (especially Federal) can protect you from actions from any other court. In order for Brinks to continue against Jim, Brinks would have to petition the bankruptcy court for permission. In that bankruptcy court environment Jim could ramble on about the "facts" he mentioned here, without the normal legal impediments in play, and Brinks would probably not win such an effort. Brinks probably wouldn't even file the motion because it would not be in Texas, but Florida, and they know they would not be granted the motion with the facts as they are. Brinks attorneys will be in violation of the law if they filed any more actions against Jim, even if they were not directly informed of the bankruptcy. Once informed, if Brinks' attorneys persist they could be cited for contempt and ordered to jail. It would be so cool to have a Federal Marshall show up to their office and haul them off to jail. Lawyers know that can be done be they seldom do it to each other. That is why I suggested hiring a really mean bankruptcy attorney, because there are a few that will do it. Robert, your admonitions about bankruptcy and its aftermath are noted, however just like you could file for divorce and not go through with it and you'd still be married, same thing with bankruptcy. If you go into bankruptcy, and once Brinks is gone, then come out again. There are many types of bankruptcy filings. Some types are literally a shelter from your creditors (and legal adversaries) "beneath which you can hunker down with your cash and other personal property". That is the nature of "debtor in possession". In all you years in business you never received any notice of bankruptcy filings from clients? I have had plenty. If it is a chapter 7 liquidation that is one thing, and that is what you seem to be describing. Other bankruptcy filings leave you in charge and your creditors holding the bag waiting for some partial repayment. In any case what chances to you give Jim going through this against Brinks pro se? What do you suspect he'll be left with after Brinks is finished with him versus a bankruptcy filing? Jim has not seen the need to hire an attorney and unless you are offering to pay his legal bills, I suspect no one else is either. Bankruptcy is one simple way he could get Brinks off his ass and not spend a fortune (I think the filing fee is less than $300) doing it.

Bankruptcy court would be far less dangerous a place for Jim to seek pro se releif than Federal Court. I don't know if Jim even knows there is a dress code for Federal Court that is strictly enforced by some courts. Just buying the right suit to appear in Federal Court could could set him back $300. Chapter 11 is probably the most flexible of all the chapters, and as such, it is the hardest to generalize about. Its flexibility makes it generally more expensive to the debtor. However it may be Jim's cheapest way out of this mess.

"Robert L Bass" wrote in message news:ufjmi.343$fj5.0@trnddc08...

You forgot to mention the funny wig. ;-)

He already has one I hear that he keeps next to his mini skirt and fish net stocking for Saturday night outings. I am told all the boys fight over him when he dresses up.

Mr Sablemann,

Your reply to my motion just proves my point on how pathetic Brink's position really is...you can quote me on this if you like. You Mr Sablemann are a waste of human life. You would probably do better chasing ambulances. Your client is a huge eye sore in the alarm industry. Your client should just stick to transporting money. Your client has no idea what real security means. 3 doors and a motion detector for $99 is not security, it is a false sense of one.

I laugh at you.

Jim Rojas

Crash Gord> be careful what you say here

| >

4548897 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Brink?s Home Security, Inc., :: Plaintiff, :: Case No.: 3: 07 CV 0437-B v. :: Jim Rojas, :: Defendant. : BRINK?S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND MOTION FOR RELIEF OF DEFAULT Defendant Jim Rojas has failed to establish good cause either for vacating the default entered herein on May 31, 2007, or for belatedly transferring this case to another district. His pro se status cannot excuse the default in the circumstances here, where his conduct has been marked by active defiance of the judicial process, threats to harm Plaintiff, and strategic gamesmanship. I. ROJAS HAS NOT SATISFIED HIS BURDEN OF SHOWING GOOD CAUSE TO SET ASIDE THE ENTRY OF DEFAULT. A court may set aside an entry of default only for good cause shown by a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Courts examine three factors to determine good cause: ?(1) whether the failure to act was willful; (2) whether setting the default aside would prejudice the adversary; and (3) whether a meritorious claim has been presented.? Effjohn Int?l Cruise Holdings, Inc. v. A&L Sales, Inc., 346 F.3d 552, 563 (5th Cir. 2003).1 These factors are not exclusive and ?[o]ther factors may be considered, such as whether the party acted expeditiously to correct the default.? Id. A court does not need to consider all of these factors. CJS Holdings, Inc. v. Wright 1 For the third factor, the Effjohn decision cites to Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000), which clarifies that factor to refer to whether a meritorious defense has been presented by defendant. Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 1 of 11 4548897 - 2 - & Lato, Inc., 979 F.2d 60, 64 (5th Cir. 1992). Regarding the willfulness factor, the inquiry should be whether the neglect was excusable. Id. Initially, Rojas? one-paragraph ?Motion for Relief from Default? clearly fails to meet his Rule 55(c) burden. His conclusory filing provides no facts, documents or reasons showing good cause. Perhaps he feels that his pro se pleading speaks for itself as to his ignorance of legal procedures and inability to respond appropriately to legal action. But, as shown below, his own actions and words belie this position. A. Rojas? Failure To Act Was Willful And Not Excusable Neglect. Rojas? failure to answer the Complaint was not inadvertent or unintentional. It was based on a deliberate willful decision to defy Brink?s and this Court?a defiance made crystal clear in Rojas? own correspondence. Plaintiff first contacted Rojas on September 6, 2006, six months before the suit was filed, with a detailed cease-and-desist letter that laid out Plaintiff?s concerns and claims, and which cited legal authorities and provided a sample of Brink?s contract with its customers. Rojas responded belligerently. He expressed disdain for Brink?s contracts (which provide that Brink?s owns the security system equipment installed in customers? homes), and offered his own, unsupported view of contact law: ?Legally after 30 days after cancellation, the customer may dispose or do what they want with the system, no matter what your contract states.? Complaint, Ex. H, ¶ 2 (emphasis added). Though the Brink?s letter had informed him that any Brink?s programmers in his possession were the lost or stolen property of Brink?s, he indicated he would ignore Brink?s ownership, and continue to accept and use such equipment. Complaint, Ex. H, ¶ 3. Moreover, even at this early pre-suit stage, Rojas went on the offensive. Knowing that Brink?s installation and programming manuals contained trade secret information, he threatened: ?We will then list the installation & programming manuals we have available as well.? Complaint, Ex. H ¶ 1. Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 2 of 11 4548897 - 3 - Brink?s responded with a second attempt to resolve this dispute without litigation. Brink?s October 12, 2006 letter (Complaint, Ex. I) responded specifically and in detail to all of Rojas? contentions. This letter gave Rojas clear notice of Brink?s ownership of all of its programmers and the great majority of its installed equipment. It also provided Rojas with more specific legal authorities and explanations as to the copyright anti-circumvention claim, and it provided the Brink?s ?064 Patent and explained that Rojas? sale of equipment designed specifically for that patented process may induce others to infringe Brink?s patent. The letter gave Rojas two weeks to respond to Brink?s. Rojas did not utilize the two weeks to consult an attorney, or even do his own research on the authorities supplied by Brink?s. The October 12, 2006 Brink?s letter went out to Rojas by email at 1:10 pm Central time (2:10 pm Eastern time). A half hour later, at 1:44 pm Central time, the sender received Rojas? defiant email response (Complaint, Ex. J): Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 3 of 11 4548897 - 4 - Rojas? response was not that of a party that inadvertently misunderstood the issues, or that attempted to respond in good faith. It was a response of deliberate defiance: ?I have no further interest in hearing what you, or your client have to say in regards to the equipment, programmers, or programming of abandoned Brink?s systems. I will continue to buy, sell, or trade Brinks parts, programmers & accessories, as it becomes available on the internet, or mailed to me. You are welcome to try to prevent this, but you and I know what the chances are of that happening.? Complaint, Ex. J (emphasis added). In March 2007, Brink?s filed this action. Rojas was served personally, on March 28, 2007. See Docket #9. Rojas didn?t answer as required on April

1. His failure to answer was deliberate. He made no good faith attempt to respond to the suit. Rather, he publicly thumbed his nose at Brink?s and the Court, posting the lawsuit on his website ?for public viewing? as if he wanted to have the world see him bask in the glory of his defiance of it. See Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, pp. 2-4 and Ex. A. Emails he subsequently sent to Brink?s lawyers and others (quoted in and attached to the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment; see pp. 3-8 and Exhibits B-G) confirmed that he was fully aware of the lawsuit, and made a deliberate knowing decision to defy it. Rojas appears to argue in his motion that his neglect is excusable because he chose not to hire an attorney. But Rojas has had over ten months to obtain counsel since he received Brink?s first cease-and-desist letter. During that time, he received advice from various sources that he should hire counsel. Rojas made many postings on security-related USENET message boards, letting other posters know about the lawsuit and his responses to it. A few hours after Rojas posted the lawsuit to the alt.locksmithing newsgroup, another poster replied: ?You are going to lose this one???.Brinks has it in the bag. You just can?t steal and resell what?s not yours. Proprietary ownership is clear cut and is protected by law.? Exhibit A, p.2 (April 3-5,

2007 message string on alt.locksmithing newsgroup). When another poster also immediately Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 4 of 11 4548897 - 5 - told Rojas, ?I should think you would have removed all Brinks stuff after receiving the first letter,? and yet another noted, ?Every Brinks system has a disclaimer ON THE BOX which states the customer does not own the system, Brinks does?, Rojas responded: ?You can?t just cave in to all their silly demands. ? They can huff and puff all they like.? Ex. B, pp. 4, 5, 6-7 (April 3-4, 2007 message string on alt.security.alarms newsgroup). Another poster advised Rojas: ??there may also be merit in sitting down and discussing the situation and coming up with a mutually agreeable ?compromise.? Your lawyer should tell you realistically your chances of winning in your situation.? Id., p. 6. Another poster raised the issue of a default judgment to Rojas: ?Are you going to let them get a default judgment and then see what luck they have collecting?? Id., p. 3. All of these exchanges occurred well before the April 14, 2007 answer deadline. Thus, from the beginning of this lawsuit, Rojas understood its significance, actively discussed it with others, and received some advice to obtain legal counsel, resolve the demands, and/or avoid a default. With all of this information and understanding, he made the deliberate decision not to respond to the lawsuit and to publicly defy it. He cannot credibly claim excusable neglect in this situation. Rojas? willful disregard for the judicial system, by itself, should result in denial of his motion. See Dierschke v. O?Cheskey, 975 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1992) (concluding ?that when the court finds an intentional failure of responsive pleadings there need be no other finding?); Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000) (same); CJC Holdings, Inc., 979 F.2d at 64, 66 (affirming court?s denial of motion to set aside default judgment based on willful failure to answer the complaint); Davis v. Hutchins, 321 F.3d 641, 646 (7th Cir 2003) ("willfulness is shown in a party's continuing disregard for the litigation or for the procedures of the court?; default upheld where defendant ?exhibited a continuing and willful disregard for this litigation and for the procedures in federal court?); Hal Commodity Cycles Mgmt. Co. v. Kirsh, 825 F.2d 1136, 1138 (7th Cir. 1987) ("[A]n appellate court will not Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 5 of 11 4548897 - 6 - reverse the denial of Rule 60(b) relief when entry of the default judgment resulted from the defaulting party's willful refusal to comply with the minimum standards of conduct expected of all litigants"). As one district court recently noted, ?The boundary of willfulness lies somewhere between a case involving a negligent filing error, which is normally considered an excusable failure to respond, and a deliberate decision to default, which is generally not excusable.? International Painters and Allied Trades Union and Industry Pension Fund v. H.W. Ellis Painting Co., 288 F.Supp.2d 22, 26 (D.D.C. 2003). There can be no doubt that Rojas? conduct here is far from a ?negligent filing error,? and fell on the willful side of that boundary line. Indeed, even without the record of aggressive and deliberate defiance of the court proceeding that is present here, courts have held that failure to obtain counsel does not excuse a failure to answer. See Interscope Records v. Benavides, 241 F.R.D. 458, 461-62 (W.D. Tex. 2006) (noting that ?even pro se litigants must act within the time provided by statute and rules? and ?While it is regrettable that defendant was unable to find an attorney to assist her, if the Court were to excuse her failure to answer on this ground then the default option would be an empty threat to any pro se defendant who neglected to file an answer.?); Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C. v. Ashraf, 241 F.R.D. 451, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (?pro se status does not excuse the defendants' complete failure to respond to the complaint for seven months?; ?a reasonable non-lawyer should have realized that some sort of response to the summons and complaint was necessary?); Employee Painters' Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (failure to obtain replacement counsel held not to constitute excusable neglect). B. Brink?s Will Be Prejudiced If The Default Is Set Aside. The circumstances of Rojas? defiance of this lawsuit have already prejudiced Brink?s. Rojas has adopted a deliberate strategy of catch-me-if-you-can (You are welcome to try to Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 6 of 11 4548897 - 7 - prevent this, but you and I know what the chances are of that happening?), using the weapons of delay, defiance (?They can huff and puff all they like?), and threats of retaliation (?We will then list the installation & programming manuals we have available as well.? Complaint, Ex. H ¶ 1; ?I am going to publish this information and make it available to any alarm dealer who wants it for free. I will also provide step by step instructions on how to change all the eprom data to include the dealer?s own phone number, account number, report codes, zone definitions, and how to alter the eprom to make the panel a local system . . . I will not stand idle ?? Brink?s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Docket #15, Exhibit A, p. 10). Rojas does not appear to have given up on threats, even despite this Court?s injunction. Three days after this Court?s July 10, 2007 Temporary Restraining Order was issued, he sent a email, apparently renewing his threat to post Brink?s trade secrets on the Internet: ?All I can do is just wait for them to get their judgement. That's when I will crack my knuckles, click send, and make good on my promises...? Exhibit C (July 13, 2007 Rojas email). To a degree, Rojas? tactics have worked. He has delayed the process by many months already. He has spent those and other months inviting public criticism of Brink?s, and apparently continuing his services and sales that Brink?s believes infringe its trade secrets and induce infringement of its patents. He has delayed access to his documents through discovery, and given the absence of legal counsel on his side, there is a heightened risk that probative records or physical evidence may have been lost or destroyed. Cf., Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C. v. Ashraf, 241 F.R.D. 451, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (?plaintiff has a legitimate concern that increased delay will allow defendants to divert funds and preclude plaintiff from successfully enforcing a judgment against the defendants in the future?). He has been able to make his threats, which are quite serious and credible to Brink?s, as they would be to any owner of carefully maintained trade secrets. He has, in short, harmed Brink?s by his strategic Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 7 of 11 4548897 - 8 - defiance of the lawsuit to date. Permitting him to vacate the default and start afresh, despite the disadvantage to Brink?s of his defiance and delay strategy, would prejudice Brink?s. C. Rojas Has Not Presented A Meritorious Defense. Rojas has failed to demonstrate that he has viable defenses to Brink?s claims of conversion, patent infringement, circumvention of technological measures protecting digital copyrighted material, trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference with contract and trade secret violations. Rojas merely states that he ?believe[s] the Plaintiff is intentionally misleading the Court with facts it has no real intention of ever proving.? Def. Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, Docket # 21. This statement is unsupported and contrary to the record, which contains numerous exhibits supporting Brink?s claims, including pages from Rojas? own website and his emails. Rojas? motion is insufficient to meet the default-vacation burden. Sony Corp. v. Elm State Elecs. Inc., 800 F.2d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1986) ("Although in an answer general denials normally are enough to raise a meritorious defense, the moving party on a motion to reopen a default must support its general denials with some underlying facts."). Because Rojas? failure to answer the Complaint was willful and not due to excusable neglect, Brink?s would be prejudiced if relief from default was granted, and Rojas has not presented any meritorious defenses, Rojas? motion for relief from default should be denied. II. ROJAS HAS FAILED TO SATISFY HIS BURDEN OF SHOWING WHY THE VENUE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED. Rojas? unusual ?forum non conveniens? motion (?I again request a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, even though I do not fully understand what that means?) should be denied. Venue is proper here, especially in light of Rojas? sales and activities throughout the nation and the South, and it would be particularly inappropriate to permit a party who engaged in strategic defiance of a case to belatedly raise a venue motion. Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 8 of 11 4548897 - 9 - Initially, the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only when the more convenient forum is a foreign country, and both Brink?s and Rojas reside in the United States. See In re Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, 821 F.2d 1147, n. 15 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez, 490 U.S. 1032 (1989), opinion reinstated in part on other grounds, 883 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1989) (en banc). Brink?s will respond to his motion as if Rojas is requesting a change of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Id. (?If the motion seeks a change of forum within the federal system, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) applies instead of the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens?). Section 1404(a) provides: ?For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.? 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). When a motion is brought to transfer venue, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating why the forum should be changed. Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir. 1966). ?A plaintiff?s choice of a proper forum is a paramount consideration in any determination of a transfer request, and that choice should not be lightly disturbed.? Young v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 601 F. Supp. 399, 401 (N.D. Tex. 1984). Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because Brink?s intellectual property in issue is located here; a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred here, including offers to sell and sales of his products and services throughout the country and in Texas, and harm to Brink?s which is located here; and because Rojas is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. See Docket # 1, ¶¶ 5-6. Rojas seems to claim that because he cannot obtain pro bono counsel in Texas, venue is improper. But Rojas does business nationwide. See Complaint, Ex. H, ¶ 7 (Rojas email discussing relationships with dealers ?all over the USA?). He apparently does significant business in Texas. Id., ¶ 8 (expressing familiarity with practices of ?many dealers in the South, Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 9 of 11 4548897 - 10 - like in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee & Alabama?). He provides no reason why he should be entitled to partake in the benefits of doing business in Texas but be excused from the obligation to defend a lawsuit in Texas. Nor does he provide any reason or authority why he would be entitled to pro bono counsel, much less a convenient place for obtaining pro bono counsel.2 Application of the traditional section 1404 factors favors denial of Rojas?s motion. Venue is proper in this district, and Brink?s choice of its forum is entitled to heavy weight. See Young, 601 F. Supp. at 402 (?Unless Defendants make an affirmative showing of oppressiveness, Plaintiff?s choices are not to be examined?). Multiple Brink?s witnesses are located in this district, and only one apparent witness (Rojas) resides in his home forum. Brink?s is likely to have more documents and physical evidence than Rojas. This court has already engaged in some substantive proceedings (the Temporary Restraining Order and the Preliminary Injunction), and transfer to another district will play into the Rojas strategy of delaying the action. Rojas? delay in requesting such a transfer three and a half months after the Complaint was served also supports a denial of his motion. See Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428 (5th Cir. 1989) (?Parties seeking a change of venue should act with ?reasonable promptness??). Finally, given the circumstances here of Rojas? deliberate defiance of the proceedings, it would be particularly inappropriate to defer to his belatedly raised venue preferences. Because Rojas has not set forth any reasons why the forum should be changed and because Brink?s choice of venue in this district is proper, Rojas? motion to transfer should be denied. 2 In any event, it is unlikely he will obtain pro bono counsel anywhere. Public interest legal groups are unlikely to find a public interest in Rojas? use of lost or stolen materials, his infringement of Brink?s intellectual property, or his circumvention of lockout codes protecting copyrighted software. Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 10 of 11 4548897 - 11 - Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, Brink?s requests that the Court deny Defendant?s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and Motion For Relief of Default, and set a hearing on Plaintiff?s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. 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 July 25, 2007. ______/s/ Mark Sableman____________ Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 23 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 11 of 11

Thank you for the email. You can send the items to the address on my website.

Jim Rojas

DK wrote: At 1:09 PM 7/24/2007

Damn Jim. I just read all those PDF files. I am sending you all the brinks install manuals, programmers, dealer handbooks, and anything else I have left here of theirs. Those cocksuckers really have a pair of balls. They pissed me off by back charging me for accounts I never even put online for them. They even had the balls to send me bills for my office alarm, and my home alarm as well, even though no brinks system was ever installed there. They are all scumbags. If you need any help with learning how to program their systems, give me a call. I would be more than happy to help you out in anyway I can. They f***ed me over bigtime. Its time for payback.

Later. DK

Bill wrote:

Paraphrasing a movie quote here. You can't blame a lawyer for being a lawyer any more than you can blame a dog for being a dog.

Jim you might be missing the point here. Mr. Sablemann gets paid, like all vermin lawyers like him do I suspect, by billing by the hour. So when he files a motion against you that is only one part of the bill he gets to create. With every motion he gets to send another bill explaining to the customer what he did (or didn't do) in the motion he filed. Then he gets to bill for their return phone calls about future strategy etc. Believe me this whole thing (as difficult as it may be for you to accept) has absolutely nothing to do with you. It is simply the more he can file, the more money he gets. There is no way you could make him feel anything good or bad about himself as a lawyer or human being. That might be like trying to make Hermann Goering feel bad about signing the orders to wipe out the Jews. Practicing law is simply something he does, and feels he does well, and get paid to do it. It is just a money thing. Nothing more. If you want to bug him get see that he doesn't win and doesn't get paid. The first will annoy him and the later will kill him. Calling him a waste of human life is merely stating the obvious, and encouraging him to chase ambulances would be an otherwise undeserved step up the career ladder. It is obvious that he views you as an under educated, low paid unskilled tradesman of sorts that is barely worth his attention. If it wasn't for Brinks paying the freight he would have little to do with you. This is nothing he would take on as a cause for himself, as his overblown legal advocacy seems to suggest. Until Brinks give up, using this forum for taunting or revenge might be an activity you want to save for another day. What you say here can only hurt you there. Good luck.

"Jim Rojas" wrote in message news:46a7bab8$0$29704$ snipped-for-privacy@roadrunner.com...

> | >