Brinks v Jim Rojas New Motion
Jim Rojas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
Brink’s Home Security, Inc., ::
Plaintiff, :
: Case No.: 3:07CV0437-B
v. ::
Jim Rojas, ::
Defendant. :
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
AND FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff Brink’s Home Security, Inc., by its undersigned attorneys,
requests that
the Court hold Defendant Jim Rojas in contempt for violation of the
Court’s July 17, 2007
Preliminary Injunction, and take appropriate protective steps to enforce
the Preliminary
Injunction.
In support, Plaintiff states:
Rojas’ Violations of Injunction
1. The Court’s Preliminary Injunction prohibits Rojas from publishing,
distributing or disseminating Brink’s trade secrets, including “methods
of circumventing the
lock out codes on Brink’s control panels.”
2. Rojas has recently posted on his website, located at www.tech-man.com,
a software program titled “Tech Help.” The Tech Help program contains
instructions which
clearly describe how to circumvent the lock out protection on Brink’s
Home Security control
panels. Plaintiff has prepared a Declaration of David Yorkey, Brink’s
Senior Manager of
Product Technology, describing his recent review and analysis of the
Tech Help program, and
setting forth screen shots from that program. By separate motion,
Plaintiff has requested leave
Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 9
4599823 - 2 -
to file the Declaration separately in an ex parte submission under seal.
(As set forth in that
motion, because the Yorkey declaration identifies the trade secret
information disclosed by
Rojas, a public filing of the declaration, or sharing of it with Rojas,
would in Brink’s opinion
defeat the purpose of this motion.)
3. Rojas clearly knowingly and intentionally posted these materials in
violation of the Preliminary Injunction. As previous filings in this
Court by both Brink’s and
Rojas have made clear, Rojas takes a hostile and antagonistic attitude
toward this Court and
the legal process. In various statements, some posted on Internet news
groups, some sent by
e-mail to Brink’s and the court, and some directly filed with the Court,
Rojas has displayed a
rebellious attitude, hostile to the American legal system.
4. As set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(Docket #15), Rojas has sent multiple e-mails to Plaintiff’s counsel
stating or indicating that
he intended to ignore, defy and/or taunt Brink’s, its counsel and the
Court and judicial process.
In one of his e-mails, dated June 30, 2007, he stated that he intended
to publish Brink’s trade
secret information and make it available to all alarm dealers, together
with “step by step
instructions” on how to circumvent Brink’s lock out codes on its control
panels. Brink’s filed
its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in response to this threat.
Rojas then appeared by
telephone in a hearing on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and, at that hearing,
essentially retracted his threats, stated that he did not intend to
disseminate Brink’s trade
secrets, and stated that he would consent to an Order of this court
prohibiting him from doing
such. The Court then entered its Temporary Restraining Order (Docket
#16), which was later
amended to become a Preliminary Injunction (Docket #22).
5. In August 2007, Plaintiff was approached by a third party who stated that
he was a business acquaintance of Rojas and hoped to facilitate a
settlement of this matter.
Brink’s participated in settlement discussions with Rojas through this
intermediary, and was
Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 2 of 9
4599823 - 3 -
told at one point by the intermediary that a settlement agreement had
been reached. However,
the intermediary later reported that Rojas had changed his mind and
would not agree to the
settlement. During the approximately five weeks when the settlement
discussions were going
on, Brink’s did not receive e-mails from Rojas, and in addition, various
Internet news groups
(where Rojas had in the past posted many messages concerning Brink’s and
this case) showed
no such activity. However, shortly before the intermediary reported to
Brink’s that Rojas was
backing out of the settlement agreement, Brink’s began receiving a
flurry of new e-mail
messages, all in the hostile style of Rojas’ e-mails, although the
e-mails all came through
anonymizing portals and bore various signatures, most of which, like
“Noman Nescio” and
“Non sciveteni” are well known synonyms for “Anonymous” or “No Name.” It
is apparent
that Rojas authored and sent these e-mails.
6. Last week, Rojas further escalated the matter by posting various
messages on the Internet news group alt.security.alarms, some in his own
name and some sent
through anonymizing portals using anonymous names. Among other things, a
new message
strand entitled “Brink’s BHS 2000D Hack” was created on
alt.security.alarms on October 3,
2007 at 1:17 p.m. through a posting by “Anonymous.” In the initial post,
“Anonymous”
responded to a November 24, 2004 post by someone seeking information
regarding use of a
Brink’s BHS-2000D control panel. (A printout of this message strand is
attached hereto as
Exhibit A.) “Anonymous” responded that the November 2004 poster only
needed a
programmer “that will change the values on the chip.” A few minutes
after the initial posting
by “Anonymous,” “Jim Rojas” responded by clarifying the parts number of
the Brink’s chip.
Rojas, “Anonymous” [or “Anonymous Sender”] and two other posters,
“George Orwell” and
“Noman Nescio,” engaged in exchanges over the next few hours in which
they together
provided information on circumventing the lock-out codes on the Brink’s
Home Security
system. It is apparent that this posting was initiated, written, and
orchestrated by Rojas in
Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 3 of 9
4599823 - 4 -
order to harm Brink’s, by disseminating instructions on circumventing
lock-out codes on
Brink’s control panels in violation of this Court’s Preliminary Injunction.
7. In addition to the orchestrated message board dialogue with anonymous
versions of himself, Rojas more directly violated the Preliminary
Injunction by creating and
posting to his website a software program that contained explicit
directions on how to
circumvent the Brink’s lock out codes. Rojas publicized this program
(using his own name) on
the “Brink’s BHS 2000D Hack “ message strand on the alt.security.alarms.
message board
posting on October 5. As a result of that posting, Brink’s reviewed the
program and
determined, as set forth in the Declaration of David Yorkey, that that
program contained
explicit instructions on circumventing Brink’s lock out codes in
violation of the Preliminary
Injunction.
8. In short, it is apparent that Rojas is intentionally violating the
Court’s
Preliminary Injunction. Everything about his recent activities is
consistent with malicious,
intentional defiance of the rights of Brink’s and the Court’s
Preliminary Injunction. Rojas
stayed silent when he was considering a settlement with Brink’s. When,
for whatever reason,
he decided not to settle, he began yet another flurry of hostile e-mails
and postings. In his
various postings, both to the alt.security.alarms news group and to his
own website, he
followed through on the threat he made in June to reveal Brink’s trade
secret information. His
apparent use of aliases and anonymizing services only highlights his
knowledge that the actions
he has taken are illegal.1 These actions directly violate and defy this
Court’s Preliminary
1 It is not entirely clear whether Rojas is truly attempting to hide his
identity or just engaging in childish
gamesmanship by using the aliases and anonymizing services. In one
recent message board strand, titled
“Brinks Home Security Evergreen Clauses,” populated by messages between
Rojas, “George Orwell” and
“Harry Houdini,” one poster advised Rojas: “Speaking of ‘bottom
feeders,’ perhaps you should to back to
posting as yourself …before you become confused again.” See
alt.security.alarms, at
http://groups.google.com, “Brinks Home Security Evergreen Clauses.”
Whether he is attempting to hide
his actions or simply amuse himself in connection with his violation of
the Court’s order, it is clear that
Rojas is thumbing his nose at the judicial system.
Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 4 of 9
4599823 - 5 -
Injunction. Moreover, in view of the fact that Rojas personally told the
Court on July 10, 2007
that he would not follow through on his threats and that he would comply
with the Court
Order, it is clear that Rojas can not be trusted.
9. As further evidence of Rojas’ intention to deliberately violate the
Preliminary Injunction, on October 2, 2007, he posted a message to the
alt.security.alarms
newsgroup that stated, in part:
I'll start by adding everything I know about Brinks security in my tech
help program, which is MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Feel free to file
injunctions against my intellectual property. Please, I can really use
the extra money. Maybe then I can afford to hire a lawyer to get a class
action lawsuit going. Then, I will create a website in some third world
country that is not bound by any of Mr Sablemans assumptions or motions.
I was thinking BRINKS-SUCKS.COM. I'll get back to you on that.
(Copy attached as Exhibit B; emphasis added.) And on October 7, 2007, he
sent an email to
various recipients in which he stated:
I did ask Brinks numerous times to prove that I stole any equipment,
programmers, etc. I even asked them to produce one of their customers that I
supposedly assisted to switchover to another monitoring station, or who I
assisted to unlock their panel. But they really don't care to hear about
that. At
this point in time, I really don't care either way. I wasted enough time
filing
pointless motions to the court. It all falls on deaf ears anyway. So
instead, I
will continue to use the only avenue I have to level the playing field...THE
INTERNET.
(Copy attached as Exhibit C; emphasis added.) These messages evidence an
intent to violate
Brink’s rights by disseminating Brink’s trade secrets over the Internet,
and using the Internet to
evade the power of United States courts.
10. For these reasons, Brink’s requests that Rojas be immediately held in
contempt, that the Court take appropriate action to prevent further
violations of its
Preliminary Injunction by Rojas, and that the Court appropriately punish
Rojas for his
violations so far, and compensate Brink’s for the damage caused by
Rojas’ violations.
Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 5 of 9
4599823 - 6 -
Court’s Personal Jurisdiction Over Rojas
11. This Court clearly has jurisdiction over Rojas and should not delay full
and effective contempt proceedings against him. Brink’s recent brief
regarding personal
jurisdiction, Docket # 31, fully explains the legal basis for this
Court’s jurisdiction over Rojas.
Moreover, personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, can
be waived, and in this
case, Rojas, by voluntarily appearing herein, has clearly waived any
objections he might
otherwise have to personal jurisdiction.
12. Rojas studiously avoided appearing in this Court for the first three
months of this action. However, after Brink’s filed its Motion for
Default Judgment,(Docket
#13), and the Court sought a response from Rojas (Docket #14), Rojas
then appeared in the
case, submitting filings through which he sought to avoid having a
default judgment entered
against him. While his filings were not conventional, they clearly
constituted an appearance
under the law. See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. M.T.S. Enters., Inc., 811
F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir.
1987) (finding waiver of a defect in personal jurisdiction and noting "a
party need not
necessarily file an answer in federal court to put in an appearance for
purposes of Rule 12(h):
'An appearance may also arise by implication from a defendant's seeking,
taking, or agreeing to
some step or proceeding in the cause beneficial to himself or
detrimental to plaintiff other than
one contesting only the jurisdiction or by reason of some act or
proceeding recognizing the case
as in court.'"); MCW, Inc. v. Badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C., No.:
3:02-CV-2727-G, 2004 WL
833595 at *4-5 (N.D. Tex. April 19, 2004) (denying motion to dismiss for
lack of personal
jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(1) because defendants waived the defense
by not raising it in their
first Rule 12(b) motion); O'Brien v. R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc., 998
F.2d 1394 (7th Cir. 1993)
(waiver of challenge to personal jurisdiction by not raising the issue
in defendant's motion to
vacate an entry of default). Rojas cannot have it both ways, first by
appearing in the case and
seeking to avoid the default judgment, and second by asserting in the
face of imminent adverse
Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 6 of 9
4599823 - 7 -
action against him that he is not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.
Once he appears, as he did
in June 2007, he is fully in the case, and fully subject to all orders
and judgments of the Court.
Indeed, there can be no doubt as to the validity of the Preliminary
Injunction against Rojas,
because Rojas, in the telephone hearing on the original Temporary
Restraining Order, explicitly
told the Court that he would not object to the Order, and would comply
with it. See
Temporary Restraining Order, Docket #16 (“the Defendant poses no
objection to the relief
sought”). Again, one who has consented to a Court Order cannot later
contest its jurisdictional
effect.
13. In short, there is no question as to this Court’s personal
jurisdiction over
Rojas for all purposes, and especially for purposes of full enforcement
of its Preliminary
Injunction.
Relief Requested
14. Plaintiff requests that the Court either find Rojas in contempt based
upon the evidence set forth herein, or promptly set a telephonic hearing
to address this motion.
15. If and when the Court finds Rojas in contempt, Plaintiff requests that
the Court:
a. Instruct the United States Marshall to immediately seize all computers
and communication devices located on Rojas’ premises at 8002 Cornwall Lane,
Tampa, Florida 33615-4604, in order to prevent further violations of the
Preliminary
Injunction. In light of Rojas’ record of defiance and untrustworthiness,
a seizure of the
instrumentalities of his violations is necessary to prevent further
harm. Cf., United
States v. Mitnick, 145 F.3d 1342 (9th Cir 1998) (affirming conditions of
supervisory
release which restricted connected computer hacker’s access to computers).2
2 If the computers are seized, Brink’s should be permitted to have an
independent expert preserve the
contents of the computers, by taking mirror images of their hard drives,
so that such evidence is fully
Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 7 of 9
4599823 - 8 -
b. Instruct the United States Marshall to serve a copy of its Order on
Rojas’
Internet service provider, Ecommerce Corporation, d/b/a 1X Web Hosting,
247 Mitch
Lane, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240, instructing it (1) not to facilitate
any violations of
the Preliminary Injunction by Rojas, and specifically to not assist
Rojas in any manner
in disseminating instructions regarding circumvention of Brink’s lock
out-codes, or any
other content that would violate the Preliminary Injunction, and (2) to
hold in escrow
all revenue due Rojas pending a final determination by this Court of
these contempt
proceedings and any fines imposed therein.
c. Award Brink’s a compensatory fine of at least $10,000, or such other
amount as the Court deems appropriate in the circumstances, to
compensate Brink’s
for its actual loss due to the violation, plus Brink’s reasonable
expenses including
attorney's fees in preparing for the contempt proceeding. See Sebastian
v. Texas Dep't
of Corrections, 558 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. Tex. 1983); Cook v. Ochsner
Found. Hospital,
559 F.2d 270 (5th Cir. 1977).
d. Impose an appropriate punishment on Rojas for his intentional
violations of the Preliminary Injunction.
preserved in the event that it becomes necessary in further proceedings
to determine the full extent to
which Rojas has violated the injunction and/or violated Brink’s rights
as alleged in the Complaint. Based
on Rojas’ threats and conduct so far in this litigation, it is clear
that there is a significant danger of
destruction of evidence, and accordingly it is essential to preserve key
evidence.
Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 8 of 9
4599823 - 9 -
15. 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.
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 (jro...@tech-man.com) on October 9, 2007.
______/s/ Mark Sableman____________
Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 9 of 9
Just Looking
system.
Okay time for your confession here Jim. Was it the 'Viva Fidel' poster or
have you been flying the Confederate Battle Flag again? Once they made it
illegal to burn crosses, you just haven't been yourself. It's okay, you can
still burn your old draft card if you want to.
I see you've kicked sand in his face and now he is crying, just like you
were. Are you happy with yourself now? It seems they're going to try to come
and take your toys away. Better head down to Good Will and get yourself a
couple of rooms full of junk, making certain nothing is RoHS compliant.
Maybe stock up on the old 19 inch and 21 inch models especially. Those
things weigh a ton, and with the Florida heat someone is going to end up
filing a medical claim. Once they haul it all of you can call the EPA for
failure to store and dispose of the equipment properly. Too bad you never
did any work at SCIF centers, military bases and such, then you could claim
there are national security items on your computer. Then the Marshals could
show up on one side to get it and the FBI on the other to stop it. I wonder
what would happen?
> 15. 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
Run Forrest, run. It seems that if you've already spilled the beans, your
computers aren't the place the information is stored on anymore. Well at
least get your wife to have some water, tea, Cokes, cookies and finger
sandwiches for the nice gentlemen when they come to collect the gear. You
should be happy for Brinks. I can only imagine what this whole thing is
going to cost them. It might be time to get that Che tee shirt and start
heading back the other 90 miles, even if they take your passport. What do
you think about calling yourself 'The Havana Tech Man' You could post
information on how to 'unleash the revolution in your alarm system!'. Sounds
catchy. Avoid freight costs and get more old panels to sent to you on every
changing tide. You'd be in unlock heaven!
Someone needs to explain to me how someone would want to use a piece of crap
alarm panel like Brinks for a takeover anyway. If Brinks really does own the
system, you'd lose your license anyway for doing it in this state. Why
persist with all this other legal hocus pocus? The risk and the reward don't
match. Before I read those posts on take overs I didn't think anyone did it.
I still haven't ever seen or even heard of it being done anywhere in real
life. Sounds more like a tempest in a teapot someone turned into a payday.
"Jim Rojas" <jro...@tech-man.com> wrote in message
news:470BFCC8...@tech-man.com...
Jim Rojas
Brinkie Man
O, I wish I was in the land of Texas
Laptop & tools by my side
Look away! Look away!
Look away! Brinkie Man.
I have all the trusty lockout codes
For every panel ever made
Look away! Look away!
Look away! Brinkie Man.
Chorus:
O, I wish I worked for Brinkie!
Hooray! Hooray!
In Dallas Land I'll take my stand
To enforce our PSA all over the land
Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
Jim Rojas has a real good notion,
Yet Mr Sableman is filing endless motions
Look away! Look away!
Look away! Brinkie Man.
But when Jim tried to take the panel over
He smiled and said s Vista20P is on order
Look away! Look away!
Look away! Brinkie Man.
Chorus:
O, I wish I worked for Brinkie!
Hooray! Hooray!
In Dallas Land I'll take my stand
To enforce our PSA all over the land
Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
Before Jim could remove the panel and put it in the corner,
Mr Sableman said wait! he'll be right over
Look away! Look away!
Look away! Brinkie Man.
Mr Sableman flashed them their signed PSA
Jim then packed his bags and went on his way
Look away! Look away!
Look away! Brinkie Man.
Chorus:
O, I wish I worked for Brinkie!
Hooray! Hooray!
In Dallas Land I'll take my stand
To enforce our PSA all over the land
Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
Away, away, Away down south in Dallas!
Jim Rojas
Just Looking
I tried to post the wav file, but the mic blew up. I always thought I should
be on a stage somewhere. One is leaving soon and I think I'll be on it.
You know Jim you're just not showing enough Anti-American bias. Try harder.
You know people are watching. Couldn't you write some lyrics to an old
subversive Cuban revolutionary song instead? Someone has to know at least
one or two of those old songs near your neck of the woods. If not try this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMcENXlxyg Maybe you could do a find Waldo
kind of thing in the background? Your hiding with a panel and some unlock
codes somewhere in those pictures aren't you?
"Jim Rojas" <jro...@tech-man.com> wrote in message
news:470C25A3...@tech-man.com...
Jim Rojas
grandson to be the cameraman, and make a few Youtube parody
movies...coming soon to a 17 inch screen near you..."The Brinks
Deliverence" It's based on a true story on what happens to a family who
wishes to get out of their PSA without a 60 day written notice. I'll see
if Burt Reynolds would like to direct & produce it.
Possible future sequels:
The Brinksfather
Brinkstanic
On Golden Brinks
Brinks Lives
Night Of The Living Brinks
Brinks Night Fever
Brinks Black
The Chronicles Of Brinks
To Brinks And Back
Brinks Wars
Brinks Phone Home
Brinks The Revenge
Any suggestions are welcome.
tourman
> alarm panel like Brinks for a takeover anyway. If Brinks really does own the
> system, you'd lose your license anyway for doing it in this state. Why
> persist with all this other legal hocus pocus? The risk and the reward don't
> match. Before I read those posts on take overs I didn't think anyone did it.
> I still haven't ever seen or even heard of it being done anywhere in real
> life. Sounds more like a tempest in a teapot someone turned into a payday.
RHC: I am of the same mind as yourself. I really don't know why anyone
would want to break the lock code on a proprietary Brinks panel unless
they wanted to use it only in local mode. Especially since it's not
very useful equipment anyway, and new panels sell for less than $100.
Most panels are unlocked for clients so they can be put back on line
properly without going to the expense of buying a new board. Brinks
equipment to my knowledge is useless for that unless it goes back to
Brinks.
But as to your never having heard of anyone actually breaking the lock
out code, I can assure you it is done because I do it every day. At
the moment, I crack about 10 to 20 boards a week, sent to me by large
customers I trust, other dealers I know in the area, but mostly by
homeowners moving into newly purchased homes with improperly locked
boards (DSC and Paradox only)....(see..http://www3.sympatico.ca/
rh.campbell/unlocking_services.htm).... However, just like Jim does,
we do NOT do it where we know it is in violation of someone's
ownership or contract rights. I have over the years worked with Jim
and we share mutual secrets on how to do this, and I doubt very much
that there is anything to their claims. So I am following this Brinks
business with some amount of dismay as to how this foolishness ever
started as I'm pretty sure their accusations are baseless, given my
knowledge of Jim and his unlocking activities. I think things have
gotten out of hand because Jim is pretty pissed off at the moment and
is reacting in kind, and more so, because he has seen fit to challenge
them in their own game, and they have responded the only way they know
how. I will admit, I'm pretty worried about the situation for his sake
though. When you choose to sleep with an elephant, you better get out
of the way when it rolls over.
I have no doubt that I could crack any Brinks board within minutes
given the knowledge and specialized equipment that both Jim and I, and
one other that I know of, possess. The bigger question is, why would
we want to even bother cracking their shit !! But then again, if they
continue to persist in this foolishness, I just might start where Jim
left off. Then they can start on me up here in Canada.
I hope Brinks backs off before this blows up in their faces. They may
win this fight, but they will surely lose the battle......
Jim Rojas
I do admit I do often talk to myself, but not since I got back on my
meds... :)
Jim Rojas
Crash Gordon
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
I hate the way they payoff Realtors to put Brinks decals on alarm panels in
homes that are up for sale, so when the house gets sold they call Brinks
instead of the security company that was servicing it before.
--
Crash Gordon
-------ouch------
<I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe>
"Jim Rojas" <jro...@tech-man.com> wrote in message
news:470c3c46$0$20655$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Jim
It seems to me that they're just plain blind to the fact that even if
they do pull this off with Jim, every alarm company in the world will
use this information to sell against them. There's not an alarm
company in existance that wouldn't be happy as hell to take the
results of them winning a case like this against some little guy down
in Florida and jamming right back up their ass everytime they came up
against Brinks in doing estimates.
And this would be something that would be used for years and years.
It's just never going to go away. Your grandson will be using it.
Compared to what little damage ..... if any, that Jim "might" be doing
is going to be nothing compared to the long term damage in lost sales
that winning this thing, could do to them.
It makes you think about what would happen if someone went to all the
websites of all the alarm associations, obtained via the NBFAA
website, and getting the e-mail address of alarm companys across the
nation and sending them a description of what Brinks does to their
competition, inviting them to use it in their sales presentations. No
lies, no exaggeration, just the facts. I'd bet that would get some
attention. Just email that out a few times a year ............. and
telling whoever, to send it to others ........ forever.
Talk about a dip is sales ..... HA!
Jim Rojas
Jim Rojas
Jim Rojas
careful they don't sue you in Canadian court for knowing too much.
Coming up next...THE BRINKS COURT
Announcer: This is Mr Sableman, He is suing Jim Rojas because he knows
in his gut that Mr Rojas is stealing all of Brinks customers, leaving
Brinks without a pot to piss in....This is Mr Rojas, he contents that he
has never been to Texas, so how was he doing this? By magic? come on
now! Jim Rojas claims Brinks is just out to get him, and they can't
prove a damn thing, so the plaintiff is just making things up as he goes
along...he is accused of tortuous interference of all Brinks PSA
agreements in the USA. Stay tuned for "The Case of Tortuous Floridian"
3 Minute Commercial Break
Bailiff: All rise! This is the case of Brinks Versus Jim Rojas, case
docket # 1817659
Judge: Thank you Bailiff. You may all be seated...Mr Sableman, you are
suing Mr Rojas for over 1 million dollars, is that right?
Sableman: Good morning Judge. First off, may I say that you are looking
exceptionally lovely today.
Judge: Thank you. Please continue...
Sableman: Your Honor, Mr Rojas says he knows alot about electronics, and
our panels are electronic. We have a sworn statement from our token
electronics expert Mr David Yokey, that will prove our panels are indeed
electronic. We have lost all of our customers. Mr Rojas runs an website
that unlocks panels, and he also does panel downloading for a
rediciulously low price. He also buys and sells our panels on the
internet, he voted for Gorge Bush. And with that being said, we must
assume he stole all our customers.
Judge: So you are saying you never lost a customer before?
Sableman: Yes your Honor, we never lost a customer before. It was only
when Mr Rojas started his online business that we started losing customers.
Judge: Ok. Mr Rojas, what's your story?
Rojas: I didn't do it.
Judge: Is that so?
Rojas: yes ma'am.
Judge: We'll see about that. Mr Sableman you represent Brinks. Is that
Brinks Home Security?
Sableman: Yes your Honor.
Judge: I have Brinks in my home. I never used it because it came with
the house, and I refused to sign into a long term contract. I'm a lawyer
too you know.
Sableman: But that's our equipment your Honor. You have to give it back.
Judge: But it came with the house when I bought it?
Sableman: It doesn't matter your Honor. You still have to give it back.
Our company only leases the equipment. Didn't you read our Protective
Service Agreement? So you have to give it back. I'll have a technician
stop by later today.
Judge: Good luck with that Pal!
Sableman: I am sorry your honor. Anyway, we have no real verified
consumer complaints, No BBB reports that we can't explain away with a
blank check...no one can touch us your Honor. We have been in business
since 1859.
Judge: Mr Rojas. Do you have proof that you didn't do any of the things
in which Mr Sableman claims you have done?
Mr Rojas: No Ma'am
Judge: Boy, your just a bundle of information aren't you?
Mr Rojas: No Ma'am
Judge: Well, I tell you...I have to judge this case on the preponderance
of the evidence provided to me. And since you Mr Rojas haven't said much
or even close to anything at all, I am starting to wonder about you.
Mr Rojas: Yes your Honor
Judge: Shut up! I had enough of you. Mr Sableman...Do you have anything
else?
Sableman: Yes. I have a stack of documents here for you to look at your
honor.
20 second pause
Judge: I will retire to my chambers and render my verdict.
3 Minute Commercial Break
Judge: I reached my decision. Mr Rojas. I read Brinks PSA. And I have to
tell you, It's rock solid. Even I would have a tough time getting out of
that contract.
Sableman: Your Honor, Jim Rojas also operates a Canadian operation in
which he unlocked, and stole Brinks only Canadian customer, thus again
engaging in tortuous interference of our PSA.
Judge: He did what?
Rojas: I did?
Sableman: I assume you did.
Rojas: Then I guess it must be true.
Judge: Judgement for the Plaintiff in the amount of 1 million dollars.
Next case.
Rojas: But your Honor...
Judge: Bailiff, escort Mr Rojas outside the courtroom before I hold him
in contempt.
Bailiff: You heard the Judge. Let's go assclown.
Announcer: And that ends this case of The Brinks Court. Let's standby
while the litigants leave the courtroom.
10 Second Pause
Announcer: Mr Rojas, why didn't you present a better case?
Rojas: I though that being innocent was enough. I don't even know where
Vancouver is. I didn't know I that their lawyers had so many sneaky ways
of twisting the truth to get the judge to see things only their way.
Announcer: That's too bad. Next time hire a lawyer, you schmuck.
Rojas: Ok I will.
Accouncer. Please step this way. We have some documents for you to sign...
5 Second Pause
Accouncer: Mr Sableman, are you pleased with the outcome?
Sableman: No, but I knew we would win. We have more money, so by default
we win.
Accouncer: Is that really fair?
Sableman: Who cares.
Accouncer: Thank you and please step this way. Let that be a lesson to
all you alarm dealers out there. The next time that you see a Brinks
sign or sticker anywhere, you better run the other way.
Nomen Nescio
quoted back to the judge in an attempt to make you look bad. The more crap
you sling at Brink's, the worse it will make you look. If you're going to
piss people off, at least wait until after a judgment is entered against
you.
You're playing a game of poker, only you think you're playing blackjack.
The judge doesn't care what you write here, except insofar as it makes you
look like a bad person. She doesn't read this newsgroup. She only reads
what people put in the motions they send her. You're not sending her any,
so she's only reading Brink's side of the story. That's your fault, not
Sableman's. It's not his job to present a fair and balanced view of
things. It's his job to represent Brink's.
You're in the fix you're in because you didn't answer the lawsuit when you
were supposed to. The judge has given you an opportunity to make one last
legal challenge before you get hammered, and you are apparently wasting it.
In short, Brink's is following the rules of the litigation game, and you
are not. All the bitching and moaning here and on your website won't
change the outcome. You have about one week left to file a good legal
argument with the court on why a Texas court doesn't have the authority to
enter a judgment against you. Don't blow the opportunity. See if you can
hire a lawyer for the limited purpose of preparing this motion; he doesn't
have to represent you for the entire case. The money you spend on lawyers
now is money Brink's can't take away from you later.
For the benefit of the Brink's lawyers who are reading this: there are
multiple Nomen Nescios posting messages here. This one, I assure you, is
not Jim Rojas posting under an alias, and your assertions that Jim is
posting under aliases are not only without foundation, they border on the
ridiculous.
Let's see you quote that to the judge.
Frank Olson
> 4599823
> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
> DALLAS DIVISION
> Brink’s Home Security, Inc., ::
> Plaintiff, :
> : Case No.: 3:07CV0437-B
> v. ::
Sableman's an idiot. "Edmond Fitzgerald" (the individual I told to go
back to posting as himself) posts from around Nashville Tennessee.
Anyone with a modicum of tool skills would be able to use a small
program Microsoft supplies with their operating system called "tracert"
to find that out.
As for "tech help", it's been around for years. I'm surprised a company
like Brinks would stoop to hire a legal representative that would lie
like this.
I think it's time Jim "mirrored" his site offshore.
Tommy
> www.tech-man.com, a software program titled “Tech Help.” The Tech Help
> program contains instructions which
> clearly describe how to circumvent the lock out protection on Brink’s
> Home Security control
> panels. Plaintiff has prepared a Declaration of David Yorkey, Brink’s
> Senior Manager of
> Product Technology, describing his recent review and analysis of the
> Tech Help program, and
> setting forth screen shots from that program. By separate motion,
> Plaintiff has requested leave
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 9
> 4599823 - 2 -
> to file the Declaration separately in an ex parte submission under
> seal. (As set forth in that
> motion, because the Yorkey declaration identifies the trade secret
> information disclosed by
> Rojas, a public filing of the declaration, or sharing of it with
> Rojas, would in Brink’s opinion
> defeat the purpose of this motion.)
Wouldn't taking screen shots of someone else's copyrighted material
constitute a crime? The whole no use/reproduction with out written consent
thing.
Edmond Fitzgerald
"Frank Olson" <Use-the-e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:sL1Pi.8610$Da.1211@pd7urf1no...
> Jim Rojas wrote:
>> 4599823
>> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>> NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
>> DALLAS DIVISION
>> Brink’s Home Security, Inc., ::
>> Plaintiff, :
>> : Case No.: 3:07CV0437-B
>> v. ::
>
> Sableman's an idiot. "Edmond Fitzgerald" (the individual I told to go
> back to posting as himself) posts from around Nashville Tennessee. Anyone
> with a modicum of tool skills would be able to use a small program
> Microsoft supplies with their operating system called "tracert" to find
> that out.
>
Correct. I am not a ship that sank on Lake Superior or Jim Rojas. What I
am is an advocate of reading recurring services contracts before you sign
them so you won't have to all that pitiful whining on Usenet or talk radio
about how you've been screwed by some unfair company.
One more time here's the simple message: Read the contract and don't sign
it if you can't or don't want to live with it. Abiding by contracts is an
important part of civilization.
Slob
> Wouldn't taking screen shots of someone else's copyrighted material
> constitute a crime? The whole no use/reproduction with out written consent
> thing.
>
They had it posted on their website for any and all to download at one
time. now all of a sudden its top secret?
Jim Rojas
Thanks Frank
Jim Rojas
Frank Olson
I would be happy to host "tech help" at www.yoursecuritysource.com gratis.
Frank Olson
> It's already in the works. I will have 2 site mirrors up by the weekend.
>
> Thanks Frank
>
> Jim Rojas
I take it that all the claims and motions posted on your site are
considered "public record" since they're filed in a Court of Law. I
have this FAQ page. I've also been thinking that it's time to update it.
Jim Rojas
Thanks
Jim Rojas
Jim Rojas
Crash Gordon
--
Crash Gordon
-------ouch------
<I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe>
"Jim Rojas" <jro...@tech-man.com> wrote in message
news:470c5601$0$15400$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Tommy
Not Brinks. Jim's tech help. Them taking screenshots and using them without
permission would violate his copyright wouldn't it?
Crash Gordon
right?
--
Crash Gordon
-------ouch------
<I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe>
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:974cbe429c4a0d0a...@dizum.com...
Jim Rojas
That is correct. But I will address that issue when the time is right.
Jim Rojas
Frank Olson
> You have my permission to do so.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jim Rojas
Email me. I don't wish to interfere with your revenue stream so I don't
want to post it openly. It should be password protected in a
"technicians" or "Dealers only" section as you have always been doing.
Sableman and his ilk are obviously not telling the judge everything. I
suppose there's no "law" against it, but my perception of this law firm
is that they're all a bunch of "scumbags" and "bottom feeders". For one
thing, they're relying on "legal technicalities" and this whole thing
will never be judged on its true merits. So much for "American justice".
Bill
> considered "public record" since they're filed in a Court of Law.
>
Hummm.... So if something "copyrighted" or "proprietary" was included in a
court motion or claim, would it then become public record?
Jim Rojas
version. I havent updated the Winhelp version since 1994.
Jim Rojas
Frank Olson
Yes, it certainly would.
Just Looking
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.
"Jim Rojas" <jro...@tech-man.com> wrote in message
news:470c3c46$0$20655$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Jim Rojas
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
Jim Rojas
http://forum.homesecuritystore.com/index.php?topic=10195.0;wap2
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)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=190001185359
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.
7. 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.
>>
>> Just like that 16 year old kid that found the back door to the Apple
iPhone. The iPhone is probably 1000 times more complicated than any
Brinks panel. Wouldn't you agree?
>
> yea but it disabled the phone on the next software upgrade.
Robert L Bass
No chance. It'd be far too gory for Burt.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
Frank Olson
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.
Just Looking
here and may weigh in soon enough.
15. 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.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/forms/forms/PreHearingReq1.pdf
Since 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.
http://www.tbfaa.org/html/members.asp?m_id=55
It 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" <jro...@tech-man.com> wrote in message
news:470BFCC8...@tech-man.com...
> 4599823
> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
> DALLAS DIVISION
> Brink’s Home Security, Inc., ::
> Plaintiff, :
> : Case No.: 3:07CV0437-B
> v. ::
> Jim Rojas, ::
> Defendant. :
> EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
> AND FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
> Plaintiff Brink’s Home Security, Inc., by its undersigned attorneys,
> requests that
> the Court hold Defendant Jim Rojas in contempt for violation of the
> Court’s July 17, 2007
> Preliminary Injunction, and take appropriate protective steps to enforce
> the Preliminary
> Injunction.
> In support, Plaintiff states:
> Rojas’ Violations of Injunction
> 1. The Court’s Preliminary Injunction prohibits Rojas from publishing,
> distributing or disseminating Brink’s trade secrets, including “methods
> of circumventing the
> lock out codes on Brink’s control panels.”
> 2. Rojas has recently posted on his website, located at www.tech-man.com,
> a software program titled “Tech Help.” The Tech Help program contains
> instructions which
> clearly describe how to circumvent the lock out protection on Brink’s
> Home Security control
> panels. Plaintiff has prepared a Declaration of David Yorkey, Brink’s
> Senior Manager of
> Product Technology, describing his recent review and analysis of the
> Tech Help program, and
> setting forth screen shots from that program. By separate motion,
> Plaintiff has requested leave
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 9
> 4599823 - 2 -
> to file the Declaration separately in an ex parte submission under seal.
> (As set forth in that
> motion, because the Yorkey declaration identifies the trade secret
> information disclosed by
> Rojas, a public filing of the declaration, or sharing of it with Rojas,
> would in Brink’s opinion
> defeat the purpose of this motion.)
> 3. Rojas clearly knowingly and intentionally posted these materials in
> violation of the Preliminary Injunction. As previous filings in this
> Court by both Brink’s and
> Rojas have made clear, Rojas takes a hostile and antagonistic attitude
> toward this Court and
> the legal process. In various statements, some posted on Internet news
> groups, some sent by
> e-mail to Brink’s and the court, and some directly filed with the Court,
> Rojas has displayed a
> rebellious attitude, hostile to the American legal system.
> 4. As set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
> (Docket #15), Rojas has sent multiple e-mails to Plaintiff’s counsel
> stating or indicating that
> he intended to ignore, defy and/or taunt Brink’s, its counsel and the
> Court and judicial process.
> In one of his e-mails, dated June 30, 2007, he stated that he intended
> to publish Brink’s trade
> secret information and make it available to all alarm dealers, together
> with “step by step
> instructions” on how to circumvent Brink’s lock out codes on its control
> panels. Brink’s filed
> its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in response to this threat.
> Rojas then appeared by
> telephone in a hearing on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
> and, at that hearing,
> essentially retracted his threats, stated that he did not intend to
> disseminate Brink’s trade
> secrets, and stated that he would consent to an Order of this court
> prohibiting him from doing
> such. The Court then entered its Temporary Restraining Order (Docket
> #16), which was later
> amended to become a Preliminary Injunction (Docket #22).
> 5. In August 2007, Plaintiff was approached by a third party who stated
that
> he was a business acquaintance of Rojas and hoped to facilitate a
> settlement of this matter.
> Brink’s participated in settlement discussions with Rojas through this
> intermediary, and was
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 2 of 9
> 4599823 - 3 -
> told at one point by the intermediary that a settlement agreement had
> been reached. However,
> the intermediary later reported that Rojas had changed his mind and
> would not agree to the
> settlement. During the approximately five weeks when the settlement
> discussions were going
> on, Brink’s did not receive e-mails from Rojas, and in addition, various
> Internet news groups
> (where Rojas had in the past posted many messages concerning Brink’s and
> this case) showed
> no such activity. However, shortly before the intermediary reported to
> Brink’s that Rojas was
> backing out of the settlement agreement, Brink’s began receiving a
> flurry of new e-mail
> messages, all in the hostile style of Rojas’ e-mails, although the
> e-mails all came through
> anonymizing portals and bore various signatures, most of which, like
> “Noman Nescio” and
> “Non sciveteni” are well known synonyms for “Anonymous” or “No Name.” It
> is apparent
> that Rojas authored and sent these e-mails.
> 6. Last week, Rojas further escalated the matter by posting various
> messages on the Internet news group alt.security.alarms, some in his own
> name and some sent
> through anonymizing portals using anonymous names. Among other things, a
> new message
> strand entitled “Brink’s BHS 2000D Hack” was created on
> alt.security.alarms on October 3,
> 2007 at 1:17 p.m. through a posting by “Anonymous.” In the initial post,
> “Anonymous”
> responded to a November 24, 2004 post by someone seeking information
> regarding use of a
> Brink’s BHS-2000D control panel. (A printout of this message strand is
> attached hereto as
> Exhibit A.) “Anonymous” responded that the November 2004 poster only
> needed a
> programmer “that will change the values on the chip.” A few minutes
> after the initial posting
> by “Anonymous,” “Jim Rojas” responded by clarifying the parts number of
> the Brink’s chip.
> Rojas, “Anonymous” [or “Anonymous Sender”] and two other posters,
> “George Orwell” and
> “Noman Nescio,” engaged in exchanges over the next few hours in which
> they together
> provided information on circumventing the lock-out codes on the Brink’s
> Home Security
> system. It is apparent that this posting was initiated, written, and
> orchestrated by Rojas in
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 3 of 9
> 4599823 - 4 -
> order to harm Brink’s, by disseminating instructions on circumventing
> lock-out codes on
> Brink’s control panels in violation of this Court’s Preliminary
Injunction.
> 7. In addition to the orchestrated message board dialogue with anonymous
> versions of himself, Rojas more directly violated the Preliminary
> Injunction by creating and
> posting to his website a software program that contained explicit
> directions on how to
> circumvent the Brink’s lock out codes. Rojas publicized this program
> (using his own name) on
> the “Brink’s BHS 2000D Hack “ message strand on the alt.security.alarms.
> message board
> posting on October 5. As a result of that posting, Brink’s reviewed the
> program and
> determined, as set forth in the Declaration of David Yorkey, that that
> program contained
> explicit instructions on circumventing Brink’s lock out codes in
> violation of the Preliminary
> Injunction.
> 8. In short, it is apparent that Rojas is intentionally violating the
> Court’s
> Preliminary Injunction. Everything about his recent activities is
> consistent with malicious,
> intentional defiance of the rights of Brink’s and the Court’s
> Preliminary Injunction. Rojas
> stayed silent when he was considering a settlement with Brink’s. When,
> for whatever reason,
> he decided not to settle, he began yet another flurry of hostile e-mails
> and postings. In his
> various postings, both to the alt.security.alarms news group and to his
> own website, he
> followed through on the threat he made in June to reveal Brink’s trade
> secret information. His
> apparent use of aliases and anonymizing services only highlights his
> knowledge that the actions
> he has taken are illegal.1 These actions directly violate and defy this
> Court’s Preliminary
> 1 It is not entirely clear whether Rojas is truly attempting to hide his
> identity or just engaging in childish
> gamesmanship by using the aliases and anonymizing services. In one
> recent message board strand, titled
> “Brinks Home Security Evergreen Clauses,” populated by messages between
> Rojas, “George Orwell” and
> “Harry Houdini,” one poster advised Rojas: “Speaking of ‘bottom
> feeders,’ perhaps you should to back to
> posting as yourself …before you become confused again.” See
> alt.security.alarms, at
> http://groups.google.com, “Brinks Home Security Evergreen Clauses.”
> Whether he is attempting to hide
> his actions or simply amuse himself in connection with his violation of
> the Court’s order, it is clear that
> Rojas is thumbing his nose at the judicial system.
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 4 of 9
> 4599823 - 5 -
> Injunction. Moreover, in view of the fact that Rojas personally told the
> Court on July 10, 2007
> that he would not follow through on his threats and that he would comply
> with the Court
> Order, it is clear that Rojas can not be trusted.
> 9. As further evidence of Rojas’ intention to deliberately violate the
> Preliminary Injunction, on October 2, 2007, he posted a message to the
> alt.security.alarms
> newsgroup that stated, in part:
> I'll start by adding everything I know about Brinks security in my tech
> help program, which is MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Feel free to file
> injunctions against my intellectual property. Please, I can really use
> the extra money. Maybe then I can afford to hire a lawyer to get a class
> action lawsuit going. Then, I will create a website in some third world
> country that is not bound by any of Mr Sablemans assumptions or motions.
> I was thinking BRINKS-SUCKS.COM. I'll get back to you on that.
> (Copy attached as Exhibit B; emphasis added.) And on October 7, 2007, he
> sent an email to
> various recipients in which he stated:
> I did ask Brinks numerous times to prove that I stole any equipment,
> programmers, etc. I even asked them to produce one of their customers that
I
> supposedly assisted to switchover to another monitoring station, or who I
> assisted to unlock their panel. But they really don't care to hear about
> that. At
> this point in time, I really don't care either way. I wasted enough time
> filing
> pointless motions to the court. It all falls on deaf ears anyway. So
> instead, I
> will continue to use the only avenue I have to level the playing
field...THE
> INTERNET.
> (Copy attached as Exhibit C; emphasis added.) These messages evidence an
> intent to violate
> Brink’s rights by disseminating Brink’s trade secrets over the Internet,
> and using the Internet to
> evade the power of United States courts.
> 10. For these reasons, Brink’s requests that Rojas be immediately held in
> contempt, that the Court take appropriate action to prevent further
> violations of its
> Preliminary Injunction by Rojas, and that the Court appropriately punish
> Rojas for his
> violations so far, and compensate Brink’s for the damage caused by
> Rojas’ violations.
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 5 of 9
> 4599823 - 6 -
> Court’s Personal Jurisdiction Over Rojas
> 11. This Court clearly has jurisdiction over Rojas and should not delay
full
> and effective contempt proceedings against him. Brink’s recent brief
> regarding personal
> jurisdiction, Docket # 31, fully explains the legal basis for this
> Court’s jurisdiction over Rojas.
> Moreover, personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, can
> be waived, and in this
> case, Rojas, by voluntarily appearing herein, has clearly waived any
> objections he might
> otherwise have to personal jurisdiction.
> 12. Rojas studiously avoided appearing in this Court for the first three
> months of this action. However, after Brink’s filed its Motion for
> Default Judgment,(Docket
> #13), and the Court sought a response from Rojas (Docket #14), Rojas
> then appeared in the
> case, submitting filings through which he sought to avoid having a
> default judgment entered
> against him. While his filings were not conventional, they clearly
> constituted an appearance
> under the law. See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. M.T.S. Enters., Inc., 811
> F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir.
> 1987) (finding waiver of a defect in personal jurisdiction and noting "a
> party need not
> necessarily file an answer in federal court to put in an appearance for
> purposes of Rule 12(h):
> 'An appearance may also arise by implication from a defendant's seeking,
> taking, or agreeing to
> some step or proceeding in the cause beneficial to himself or
> detrimental to plaintiff other than
> one contesting only the jurisdiction or by reason of some act or
> proceeding recognizing the case
> as in court.'"); MCW, Inc. v. Badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C., No.:
> 3:02-CV-2727-G, 2004 WL
> 833595 at *4-5 (N.D. Tex. April 19, 2004) (denying motion to dismiss for
> lack of personal
> jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(1) because defendants waived the defense
> by not raising it in their
> first Rule 12(b) motion); O'Brien v. R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc., 998
> F.2d 1394 (7th Cir. 1993)
> (waiver of challenge to personal jurisdiction by not raising the issue
> in defendant's motion to
> vacate an entry of default). Rojas cannot have it both ways, first by
> appearing in the case and
> seeking to avoid the default judgment, and second by asserting in the
> face of imminent adverse
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 6 of 9
> 4599823 - 7 -
> action against him that he is not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.
> Once he appears, as he did
> in June 2007, he is fully in the case, and fully subject to all orders
> and judgments of the Court.
> Indeed, there can be no doubt as to the validity of the Preliminary
> Injunction against Rojas,
> because Rojas, in the telephone hearing on the original Temporary
> Restraining Order, explicitly
> told the Court that he would not object to the Order, and would comply
> with it. See
> Temporary Restraining Order, Docket #16 (“the Defendant poses no
> objection to the relief
> sought”). Again, one who has consented to a Court Order cannot later
> contest its jurisdictional
> effect.
> 13. In short, there is no question as to this Court’s personal
> jurisdiction over
> Rojas for all purposes, and especially for purposes of full enforcement
> of its Preliminary
> Injunction.
> Relief Requested
> 14. Plaintiff requests that the Court either find Rojas in contempt based
> upon the evidence set forth herein, or promptly set a telephonic hearing
> to address this motion.
> 15. If and when the Court finds Rojas in contempt, Plaintiff requests that
> the Court:
> a. Instruct the United States Marshall to immediately seize all computers
> and communication devices located on Rojas’ premises at 8002 Cornwall
Lane,
> Tampa, Florida 33615-4604, in order to prevent further violations of the
> Preliminary
> Injunction. In light of Rojas’ record of defiance and untrustworthiness,
> a seizure of the
> instrumentalities of his violations is necessary to prevent further
> harm. Cf., United
> States v. Mitnick, 145 F.3d 1342 (9th Cir 1998) (affirming conditions of
> supervisory
> release which restricted connected computer hacker’s access to
computers).2
> 2 If the computers are seized, Brink’s should be permitted to have an
> independent expert preserve the
> contents of the computers, by taking mirror images of their hard drives,
> so that such evidence is fully
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 7 of 9
> 4599823 - 8 -
> b. Instruct the United States Marshall to serve a copy of its Order on
> Rojas’
> Internet service provider, Ecommerce Corporation, d/b/a 1X Web Hosting,
> 247 Mitch
> Lane, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240, instructing it (1) not to facilitate
> any violations of
> the Preliminary Injunction by Rojas, and specifically to not assist
> Rojas in any manner
> in disseminating instructions regarding circumvention of Brink’s lock
> out-codes, or any
> other content that would violate the Preliminary Injunction, and (2) to
> hold in escrow
> all revenue due Rojas pending a final determination by this Court of
> these contempt
> proceedings and any fines imposed therein.
> c. Award Brink’s a compensatory fine of at least $10,000, or such other
> amount as the Court deems appropriate in the circumstances, to
> compensate Brink’s
> for its actual loss due to the violation, plus Brink’s reasonable
> expenses including
> attorney's fees in preparing for the contempt proceeding. See Sebastian
> v. Texas Dep't
> of Corrections, 558 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. Tex. 1983); Cook v. Ochsner
> Found. Hospital,
> 559 F.2d 270 (5th Cir. 1977).
> d. Impose an appropriate punishment on Rojas for his intentional
> violations of the Preliminary Injunction.
> preserved in the event that it becomes necessary in further proceedings
> to determine the full extent to
> which Rojas has violated the injunction and/or violated Brink’s rights
> as alleged in the Complaint. Based
> on Rojas’ threats and conduct so far in this litigation, it is clear
> that there is a significant danger of
> destruction of evidence, and accordingly it is essential to preserve key
> evidence.
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 8 of 9
> 4599823 - 9 -
> 15. 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.
> 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 (jro...@tech-man.com) on October 9, 2007.
> ______/s/ Mark Sableman____________
> Case 3:07-cv-00437 Document 32 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 9 of 9
Bob La Londe
> Maybe I'll just take it to the next level. I'll get my 8 year old grandson
> to be the cameraman, and make a few Youtube parody movies...coming soon to
> a 17 inch screen near you...
Do people still own monitors that small?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CWatters
Although I'm sure a judge can stop that. Otherwise state secrets could be
published simply by including them in court motion.
Roland Moore
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.
"CWatters" <colin....@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in message
news:13gt37f...@corp.supernews.com...