Brinks v Jim Rojas New Motion

I am a real person. My name is not Jim Rojas. I have never used the alias Jim Rojas. I don't know what angle Brinks' legal staff is pursuing. However I do keep a rainy day fund for attorney enrichment programs. I never have represented myself Pro Se and never would. I have been to Federal Court for civil rights violations, State Court for person injury, local courts of record for zoning disputes, divorce court, probate court, criminal court for identity theft and plenty more. I respect and follow the judgments and rulings of the court. That is a matter of public record not too difficult for an attorney to discover. When I get involved I stay to the end, over 7 years in one case before it finally went to trail. Overzealous advocating for a client interests is no reason or excuse for any attorney to step over the line and knowingly make false accusations or misleading statements to the court. I would not admit to any of the accusations in the pleadings with the court and would demand strict proof thereof. I do know where Brinks' and its legal staff accepts legal service.

Since I am not Jim Rojas, or an attorney, I can only say what I might do as a first step. That would be to get the number the attorney works under as a member of the bar. I hope he is a current member and hasn't lapsed. I would send a properly formed letter to the attorney and ask for a clarification of his position and about the foundation for his allegations disguised as statements of fact. At the same time I would copy the bar and submit an official complaint on the proper forms to the bar having jurisdiction over said attorney. I would investigate further to see if there is a pattern of this sort of behavior and include the record of any past actions against this attorney as part of my complaint. I would also make certain the court was informed of the my actions in this regard.

Yeah right...a likely story. Even I am not even sure I am who I think I am. Am I? So how can you claim that you are not Jim Rojas, or ever pretended to be him? huh? huh? Yeah, I thought so... :)

Jim Rojas

Just Look> I am a real person. My name is not Jim Rojas. I have never used the alias

I found this intersting bit of information:

Aynyone ever used a brinks handheld programmer?

(1/1)

newdude: Hi guys,

I purchased a home with a brinks panel already installed from the previous owner about 2 yrs ago. At one point I tried to get the panel activated and to no one elses surprise, brinks monitoring fee and required comittment was discouragement to me.

Recently, I found a board talking about a hackers version of a brinks programmer on ebay.

(See here)

I took a chance and purchased it. It pretty much does everything he claims it will. I can change zone types, attributes, master code, aux codes, all of the important stuff no problem. But the designer of this device makes no claim to know anything about brinks panels or other products other than what he's learned from his own BHS2000. Now that I have my panel set up and the eprom data backed up to disk I want to experiment with the device programmer. Some of the data on the chip is obvious what its purpose is. Other data is not so obvious. This brings me to my question....

Can anyone that's ever used a Brinks/Scantronics handheld programmer tell me some other things that it is capable of doing on a BHS2000 panel?

Thanks,

Eric

newdude: I'd like to adjust the amount of time the siren stays on, and the entry/exit delay time. How is this set with a brinks handheld, or is it?

Eric

Security Monitor: Quote from: newdude on July 23, 2006, 11:07:54 AM

Can anyone that's ever used a Brinks/Scantronics handheld programmer tell me some other things that it is capable of doing on a BHS2000 panel?

Eric, All the Brinks programmer does is change the numeric value of a field. In order to use and change the information, you must know what each field represents (what it controls) and what numeric values equal what function (what each number represents).

With that said, I add the following cautions:

1. Brinks use a layer approach to programming. Unlike typical programming where you toggle things on & off, or change what you want that field to do, each of their field may control a critical function that has nothing to do with the fields name. So adding a one to a default can enable the chimes, while adding another 2 on top of the 1 and default could make the system a silent alarm and subtracting 4 could disable fire reporting.
2. The Letter of the panel signifies revision changes. So a 2000A has different programming features than a 200D. I believe they had 6 revision of the 200panel alone. Unlike typical programming where they add field to make changes, Brinks system used any available value open within any field. So on a A panel field 101 means one thing and on a C panel that 101 field could be do something else on top of what you thought it did. If your using a D programming on a B panel you could end up with a system that goes haywire when powered up or worst, fail to sound an alarm.
3. As mentioned, they use hidden values, so a system may have a default of 5 in a field but no where does it explain what that 5 represents. Accidentally leaving that value out of programming could result in a critical failure of your alarm. Also the default value could be different between revision numbers. As an example, lets say the field states it's for phone reporting, it could also hold an embedded value to allow first digit master code changes. If your unaware of the whole function of each field, you can change that field to the numeric value that enables an event to make a report of an alarm and without knowing it, enabled anyone to enter the first digit of your master code to shut the alarm off.
4. You also need to know when to use a single digit "1" or a double digit "01" to represent the same value.
5. Some systems have a burned in system check if any phone number is entered. That means that at some point the panel will automatically start dialing that number to check in. I do not believe you can disable that function. You can turn off the daily test, but not the embedded panel checks. Unless your only using a revision number that support paging, entering any number into the receiver number fields will cause a communications failure to be displayed on the keypads.
6. Don?t forget you, must tell the panel to accept the numeric value change. Just entering it will not make the change. If not done correctly, if you go to field 50 and make it a 10 and next go to field

60 and make it a 5, if you didn?t use the accept key, what you did was go to field 50 and next went to field 10 and next to field 60 without making the changes. Watch each step, as entering a value does not change the field until you tell it to accept it as a change.

1. DO NOT use the Load Brinks Defaults unless you must default everything and do not use the Auto Programming as it will create all the values as Brinks wants them, not the way you want them. (see #5 above)

I'm not a fan of anyone ever fiddling with the Brinks programming since with so many embedded hidden values, if you make a mistake, you could be dead in the waters requiring a full system default or loading back the old values. But if you don't know what mistake was made, you'll probably make it again.

Good luck. == Just wanted to add one more thing. Make sure you KNOW the exact model and revision number of the panel. Don't only go by the decal in the can. Since it's common for them to just change the chip to add features to an older system, the can could say 2000X but it's really a 2000Y. And, make sure you do have a 2000 series panel and not an older 1000 (the board and keypads look alike), or the modified 1200 series that used the same keypads as the 2000 but is a streamlined panel.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Slob wrote: > Jim Rojas wrote: >> What? No hack? No back doors? What fun is that then? If you look hard enough, there are back doors into everything. >>

Tommy wrote:

No chance. It'd be far too gory for Burt.

Looks like your provider has suspended service to tech-man.com. I know of a hosting provider in Canada that's inexpensive and more than willing to help out... Email me.

This has gone far enough, plain and simple. Other interests are at stake here and may weigh in soon enough.

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.

I am curious as to what legal theory this operates under where the Plaintiff may receive any amount of recovery that does not reflect any actual loss. Does Brinks operate under the laws of the State it has filed in? The validity of the claims submitted including in the preparation of this case for trial should require legal interpretations for notes and/or memoranda that may be subpoenaed. Other than for nonstatutory exceptions, and under the color of state law under which Brinks operates certain items are privileged and not admissible in Court or subject to discovery.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY PRIVATE SECURITY BUREAU MSC-0242 P.O. BOX

4087 AUSTIN TX 78773-0001 Sec. 1702.132. REPORTS TO EMPLOYER OR CLIENT. (a) A written report submitted to a license holder's employer or client may only be submitted by the license holder or manager or a person authorized by a license holder or manager. The person submitting the report shall exercise diligence in determining whether the information in the report is correct.

(b) A license holder or an officer, director, partner, manager, or employee of a license holder may not knowingly make a false report to the employer or client for whom information is obtained.

Sec. 1702.133. CONFIDENTIALITY; INFORMATION RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSE. (a) A license holder or an officer, director, partner, or manager of a license holder may not disclose to another information obtained by the person for an employer or client except:

(1) at the direction of the employer or client; or (2) as required by state law or court order. (b) A license holder or an officer, director, partner, or manager of a license holder shall disclose to a law enforcement officer or a district attorney, or that individual's representative, information the person obtains that relates to a criminal offense.

Item (2) is not covered by the type of relief the Plaintiff is seeking. How can Brinks expect Rojas to comply with an order it would otherwise be prohibited from complying with in its own state? It is obvious that a simple civil matter such as this is not sufficient cause to disclosure of the security posture of third parties, many of which may be government entities.

it costs nothing to comply with the BUREAU, when appropriate I will forward this entire matter for their considered attention. I see no reason for Brinks' legal department to cause Brinks itself to suffer a license suspension. No matter the venue it has selected, Brinks has submitted itself to an agency that it seems to so far have ignored it is efforts to address: (C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; Why is Brinks' legal staff trying to undermine the letter and spirit of these rules that the industry, presumably including Brinks, has fought a hard legal battle to see implemented? Why is Brinks so far seemingly viewing this all as a nuisance to simply be ignored? Under the rules Brinks has submitted itself to the Yorkey declaration could be disputed and become a matter of record for public disclosure under the act. Not only would the technical accuracy, but the full details of the motives for such a statement could come into question. The agency is far more technical in its reviews and the arguments are subject to its own rulings, not a plethora of legal court precedence. None likely favorable to Brinks at this point since the BUREAU in the past has not given much weight to any civil court actions or rulings it is not directly subject to, only criminal courts as evidenced in item (2) (b). Declarations to professional associations voluntarily joined by Brinks do not provide much to show any expertise under services provided compared to say ADT. is clear that licensed members of this organization would not seek to unlock panels belonging to another or would be subject to the severe career ending consequences of a theft by appropriation conviction. What efforts has Brinks made to invite the membership of this or any other professional organization to participate in assisting Brinks to stop this practice? This member organization is not going to see any of this in a favorable light I suspect, and may make seek professional sanctions within the organization against Brinks for this otherwise ludicrous, ill advised, and wasteful legal pursuit; especially if a court ruling in this matter helps to establish another legal issue the organization itself must try to overcome at additional member expense. Will Brinks offer to indemnify the organization from any expense or exposure of its membership in advance of any court rulings? Or will Brinks be content to feed of the efforts of other members, while attempting to protect its own interests regardless of the costs others may be forced to bare by their actions? And what brings all this? Singleness of purpose no doubt. For the record I can say from experience that a court ordered motion to compel and/or for sanctions are not recognized as an item (2) exception by the BUREAU rules Brinks operates under. It is not a mere irony that a pyrrhic victory in Court may prove grounds for suspension of its employees, or the company itself, for what could be ruled as violations of Sec.

1702.132. and Sec. 1702.133, through the only agency that can authorize its continued legal operation. Something I read in Hosea 8:7 sounds very familiar here. That brought on by something else I read. I think Jim has become a white whale. That captain was Ahab. And then it was, that suddenly sweeping his sickle-shaped lower jaw beneath him, Moby Dick had reaped away Ahab's leg, as a mower a blade of grass in the field.... Small reason was there to doubt, then, that ever since that almost fatal encounter, Ahab had cherished a wild vindictiveness against the whale, all the more fell for that in his frantic morbidness he at last came to identify with him, not only all his bodily woes, but all his intellectual and spiritual exasperations. The White Whale swam before him as the monomaniac incarnation of all those malicious agencies which some deep men feel eating in them, till they are left living on with half a heart and half a lung. That intangible malignity which has been from the beginning; to whose dominion even the modern Christians ascribe one-half of the worlds; which the ancient Ophites of the east reverenced in their statue devil; -- Ahab did not fall down and worship it like them; but deliriously transferring its idea to the abhorred white whale, he pitted himself, all mutilated, against it. All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, where visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it.

"Jim Rojas" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@tech-man.com...

Injunction.

computers).2

Do people still own monitors that small?

Although I'm sure a judge can stop that. Otherwise state secrets could be published simply by including them in court motion.

There isn't much a judge can do to suppress certain evidence as a practical matter. That is why on occasion spies don't get charged for certain crimes, because secrets can be exposed. Evidence can be omitted from a trail, civil or criminal, by the use of many different procedures. One methodology is posted here in Jim's case. Another method is by simple agreement of the parties approved by the judge know as a motion in limine.

message