Brinks Home Security v Jim Rojas

Brinks Home Security v Jim Rojas

Secure Home | Search | About
 CCTV, Alarms and other Physical Security    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Brinks Home Security v Jim Rojas Jim Rojas 07-11-2007
Posted by Jim Rojas on July 12, 2007, 11:57 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Brinks relies heavily on consumer ignorance. We live in a time where all
that has changed, where information on any topic is readily available
with a mouse click. An informed consumer can be your best customer.

Good luck on your future sales.

Jim Rojas




George Siegle wrote:
> I have printed the Documents, Thank You.
>
> When I show them on sales calls to people who have gotten a quote or talked
> to Brinks it put an end to them wanted to deal with Brinks.
>
> End users do not like the idea of having an alarm in their home that if they
> sell the home it has no value to the resell of the home if it is not part of
> the home and can not be used by the new owner unless they sign a contract
> with Brinks.
>
> Thanks Brinks for the help, and good luck Jim.
>
> George Siegle
>
>
>> Multi billion dollar corporation feels financially threatened by a small
>> online alarm business located in Tampa, Florida.
>>
>> Read all about it.
>>
>>
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-3:2007cv00437/case_id-165443/
>>
>> The court documents are all available for public viewing:
>>
>> http://www.tech-man.com/brinks.asp
>>
>> Jim Rojas
>
>

Posted by Crash Gordon on July 12, 2007, 12:02 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
be careful what you say here




|I have printed the Documents, Thank You.
|
| When I show them on sales calls to people who have gotten a quote or
talked
| to Brinks it put an end to them wanted to deal with Brinks.
|
| End users do not like the idea of having an alarm in their home that if
they
| sell the home it has no value to the resell of the home if it is not part
of
| the home and can not be used by the new owner unless they sign a contract
| with Brinks.
|
| Thanks Brinks for the help, and good luck Jim.
|
| George Siegle
|
|
| > Multi billion dollar corporation feels financially threatened by a small
| > online alarm business located in Tampa, Florida.
| >
| > Read all about it.
| >
| >
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-3:2007cv00437/case_id-165443/
| >
| > The court documents are all available for public viewing:
| >
| > http://www.tech-man.com/brinks.asp
| >
| > Jim Rojas
|
|



Posted by Jim Rojas on July 12, 2007, 2:02 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I honestly haven't had any requests for unlocking any Brinks system,
other than general email questions. The Instant Unlocker tool would only
be able to remove the lockout code. You would still need an EEPROM
programmer, or the PGM670 or S3121 programmer to make changes to the
panel. That's why using a product like the Panel Saver would make more
sense. Visit their website at http://www.digitaldiverter.com/

Thank you for your ideas though.

Jim Rojas



Hey Jim. I have an idea. Why not contact these Canadian guys and see if
they would be willing to do something with brinks panels? I have read
some of the documents on your website and it does look like the brinks
panels use the same type of chips. If brinks is going after you on a
federal level, the last time i checked, canada is not within that reach.

http://www.unlockservices.com/
http://www3.sympatico.ca/rh.campbell/unlocking_services.htm

Talk to these guys as well. It looks like they can actually make a unit
to accommodate brinks panels easily.

http://www.instantunlocker.com/howitworks.html

Good luck to you

Arnie S.


Crash Gordon wrote:
> be careful what you say here
>
>
>
>
> |I have printed the Documents, Thank You.
> |
> | When I show them on sales calls to people who have gotten a quote or
> talked
> | to Brinks it put an end to them wanted to deal with Brinks.
> |
> | End users do not like the idea of having an alarm in their home that if
> they
> | sell the home it has no value to the resell of the home if it is not part
> of
> | the home and can not be used by the new owner unless they sign a contract
> | with Brinks.
> |
> | Thanks Brinks for the help, and good luck Jim.
> |
> | George Siegle
> |
> |
> | > Multi billion dollar corporation feels financially threatened by a small
> | > online alarm business located in Tampa, Florida.
> | >
> | > Read all about it.
> | >
> | >
>
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-3:2007cv00437/case_id-165443/
> | >
> | > The court documents are all available for public viewing:
> | >
> | > http://www.tech-man.com/brinks.asp
> | >
> | > Jim Rojas
> |
> |
>
>

Posted by Jim Rojas on July 25, 2007, 5:03 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
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 Gordon wrote:
> be careful what you say here
>
>
>
>
> |I have printed the Documents, Thank You.
> |
> | When I show them on sales calls to people who have gotten a quote or
> talked
> | to Brinks it put an end to them wanted to deal with Brinks.
> |
> | End users do not like the idea of having an alarm in their home that if
> they
> | sell the home it has no value to the resell of the home if it is not part
> of
> | the home and can not be used by the new owner unless they sign a contract
> | with Brinks.
> |
> | Thanks Brinks for the help, and good luck Jim.
> |
> | George Siegle
> |
> |
> | > Multi billion dollar corporation feels financially threatened by a small
> | > online alarm business located in Tampa, Florida.
> | >
> | > Read all about it.
> | >
> | >
>
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-3:2007cv00437/case_id-165443/
> | >
> | > The court documents are all available for public viewing:
> | >
> | > http://www.tech-man.com/brinks.asp
> | >
> | > Jim Rojas
> |
> |
>
>

Posted by Just Looking on July 25, 2007, 9:06 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
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.

> 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 Gordon wrote:
> > be careful what you say here
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > |I have printed the Documents, Thank You.
> > |
> > | When I show them on sales calls to people who have gotten a quote or
> > talked
> > | to Brinks it put an end to them wanted to deal with Brinks.
> > |
> > | End users do not like the idea of having an alarm in their home that
if
> > they
> > | sell the home it has no value to the resell of the home if it is not
part
> > of
> > | the home and can not be used by the new owner unless they sign a
contract
> > | with Brinks.
> > |
> > | Thanks Brinks for the help, and good luck Jim.
> > |
> > | George Siegle
> > |
> > |
> > | > Multi billion dollar corporation feels financially threatened by a
small
> > | > online alarm business located in Tampa, Florida.
> > | >
> > | > Read all about it.
> > | >
> > | >
> >
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-3:2007cv00437/case_id-165443/
> > | >
> > | > The court documents are all available for public viewing:
> > | >
> > | > http://www.tech-man.com/brinks.asp
> > | >
> > | > Jim Rojas
> > |
> > |
> >
> >



Similar ThreadsPosted
Brinks Home Security v Jim Rojas Lawsuit July 6, 2007, 2:32 pm
3:07cv0437 B, Brinks Home Security, Inc. v. Jim Rojas] November 30, 2007, 6:20 pm
PR: Brinks Home Security files Civil Suit against Jim Rojas & www.tech-man.com April 3, 2007, 10:10 pm
Brinks Home Security Complaints July 25, 2007, 7:59 pm
Brinks Home Security Directory July 25, 2007, 8:04 pm
Brinks Home Security System July 25, 2007, 10:38 pm
Brinks Home Security Rip Off Alerts September 2, 2007, 9:40 pm
Re: Brinks Home Security Rip Off Alerts September 3, 2007, 6:10 pm
Brinks Home Security Rip Off Reports March 28, 2008, 9:07 am
Re: Brinks Home Security Rip Off Reports March 28, 2008, 7:56 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy