What's a Brinks 4000?

Frank Olson wrote in news:MbNRi.74972$Da.13220@pd7urf1no:

Wasn't Tom F or someone else here a brinks dealer for a while? They might be able to shed some light on the subject.

Ah but wait I just realized why there's no sales tax...they're not selling anything; it's a lease. They do have to collect/chargefor and pay telecommunications tax though.

I already do two of his homes which are monster systems...he's a good guy...it's his partner that's a PITA middle-eastern bargainer.

Ooh. Strike three.

I don't know what the policy for sales tax.is in your state. Here it is called sales/use tax. It's one in the same here for a lease or sale. Additional there is a catch 22 that says anything done under the act (state regulators of the security industry) is taxable. So a sale, or a lease, or service, or labor, (unless otherwise exempt as a special entity) is all taxable.

How many of his sheep, goats, camels and wives of his did you end up with? Or vice versa?

hmmm I'm not sure. I've only every leased out a few systems and lost my panties on them so we don't lease anymore, so dunno...it may be the same here maybe not.

I like #2

You guys don't understand. The facts of this case no longer matter. When Jim failed to file a timely answer to the lawsuit, and was unable to convince the judge to allow him to file late, all of the factual allegations in Brinks' complaint automatically became true: Jim is considered to have admitted them. Brink's no longer has to prove them.

Jim is left with a technical legal argument: that a Texas court shouldn't have the authority to enter a judgment against him. He needs a lawyer to make that argument for him.

Well if thats the case, why should I bother going to Dallas?

I'll send a letter to the Judge stating thanks but no thanks. I'll take the grandkids to Busch Gardens instead.

There is no point showing up if the outcome will be the same.

Jim Rojas

Nomen Nescio wrote:

It is not a Texas Court. It is a Federal Court located in Texas. What you have to say about the case may be true, nevertheless Jim is not out of gas just yet. But if he doesn't show up, he won't have to worry about Brinks anymore. It will be the judge and the Federal Court on his ass. Not my favorite spot to be in that's for sure.

The point of showing up is to keep your ass out of jail. This is not Judge Judy you're facing, this is a federal judge who has ordered you to show up. If she wants to, she can lock you up. Besides, it's not smart to piss off the judge who will be deciding how much money you owe Brink's.

Looking at the bright side, if they do lock you up, you're entitled to a lawyer. :)

I get the impression you really don't understand what's going on, and that's very unfortunate. You'd be wise to spend a few hundred bucks and just talk things over with a lawyer before you go to Texas, even if he won't be representing you. He can at least explain in more detail what you're up against. But here's a short version.

This is what was supposed to happen. Brink's files a complaint, listing all the terrible things they think you've done. You file an answer, admitting or denying each of those things. Both sides then start gathering evidence through what is known as "discovery:" you ask them questions, they ask you questions, you make them produce documents and they make you do the same, and so on. Both sides then figure out how strong or weak their case is, and maybe you settle some of the issues. If not, then you move on towards trial. Eventually, a jury, or maybe the judge, decides the issues based on the evidence.

What happened when you didn't file an answer is that the court basically figures Brink's must be telling the truth, since you didn't deny anything. Those are the rules: if you don't deny the factual allegations in the complaint, you're considered to have admitted they are true. That leaves some legal issues for you to argue about, like personal jurisdiction: if the court doesn't have the legal authority to issue a judgment against you, it doesn't matter if all the allegations in the complaint are true.

You are facing two hearings, on two relatively narrow issues.

The first hearing is about whether you violated the court's order about not telling people about Brink's trade secrets. You need to look at what you were ordered not to do, and see whether you violated that order. You could argue the information isn't a trade secret, but the judge is more concerned about whether you did something she told you not to do.

The second hearing is about that personal jurisdiction issue, whether you have sufficient contacts with Texas for a court in Texas to have the authority to issue a judgment against you. This isn't small claims court, and the judge isn't interested in whether you or Brink's is right. This isn't a trial. It's a hearing on a legal issue. You absolutely must have a lawyer to have a chance of winning that argument.

And everybody, keep in mind that Brink's is reading every word we write.

I think Jim is counting on that by some on the responses I see from him here. I believe at this point he must know or at least agree with what you've posted. For Jim to have that blank Brinks PSA agreement in hand suggests to me that there is some sort of discovery occurring here. Hopefully he is getting ready for Brinks. If he is not getting ready for court, then he should bring a toothbrush.

I am sending letters to all Thompson Coburn offices in the USA just to make sure that each office is fully aware what this jerk is up to.

Chicago Thompson Coburn Fagel Haber

St. Louis Thompson Coburn LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101-1611 Phone: 314.552.6000 Fax: 314.552.7000

Southern Illinois Thompson Coburn LLP

Washington, D.C. Thompson Coburn LLP

Jim Rojas

Just Looking wrote: > I went up against a similar 'win at all costs' group back when. P.I.s > followed me nearly everywhere. They got every know government agency to rake > me over the coals. They brought in everything from the IRS coming in and > flashing badges, to weird obscure agricultural department immigration > related stuff. It was a real pain in the ass and waste of time. Funny those > agencies ended up with paperwork in their hands that would only been > available to them from the fruits of the other side's discovery. Imagine > that? It was nearly impossible to accuse the other side of anything because > the lawyers they assigned to the case kept changing. It is clear that > anything they can do to win, even if you get destroyed in the process, is > simply okay with them. After all you had the nerve to go up against one of > their clients, or their client's interests. > The only good things to come of all that is that their CPA testifying for > them went to jail (before he could even testify), the law firm representing > them dissolved eventually and the company that I was up against went > bankrupt within days after the trial and has since gone under too. When they > (the lawyers and the firm) get taken down it's all described like the sad > end of an era, of history gone wrong, and full of lamentations about what > could have been. I say good riddance to them all. > Maybe another attorney reading these posts could heed this warning below > quoted form the article describing their end. >

Crash Gordon wrote:

Most of the time when I see it's someone from the middle east I'll just turn it down rather than go though the "haggle routine"

Just what is it that you think Sableman is doing that is so wrong?

He's a lawyer, and he's getting paid money to represent Brink's. He isn't getting paid to be a judge. He sure isn't getting paid to represent you. If he took money from Brink's and didn't do his best to nail your ass to the wall, he'd be a crook for taking money and not doing his job. He has an ethical obligation to do the best job he can of representing his client.

You are supposed to have an attorney who is equally dedicated to representing your interests. You would be upset if you were paying your lawyer lots of money and he started sounding like he was representing the other side. Your lawyer has a duty to do his best for you, just as Sableman has a duty to do his best for Brink's. It isn't personal. For whatever reason, you don't have a lawyer. That's not Sableman's fault.

Getting pissed off at Sableman is like climbing into the ring with a professional boxer, and then getting pissed off because he beats your ass. That's his job. If you think he's hitting below the belt, that's different

-- tell us why. Otherwise, your letter to the other offices will probably only be taken as an indication that he's doing a good job. Why would they object to him winning a case for a client?

You obviously haven't been reading "the case" put forward by Mr. Sableman. The guy's a jerk, doesn't understand that knowing the default installer code for a panel *isn't* "a hack", and lies like Robert Bass.