Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Defendant does not intend to call any witnesses or offer any documents into evidence other than for

impeachment purposes.

A) Listen to Calawyer over anything I have to say. They can TRY to sneak in anything. C) Raise every objection you can think of. At appeal, you waive right to any objection you missed otherwise. D) Objection: Hearsay, Lacks Personal Knowledge, Lacks Authentication, does not conform to CCP 2015.5, fails to meet business rule exception requirements, witness is incompetent and unqualified, does not conform to CCP 98 requirements, denies defendant due process and right of crossexamination ...

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/318018-sued-by-cach-when-do-i-sendbopdiscovery-docs/page-12
1) Yes, ramble on. Yes, you have a lot of studying to do. Prepare, prepare, prepare. 2) My judge wanted to hear every objection and was very patient. I wouldn't pause to wait for an objection to be sustained ... just keep going. Some of the objections are redundant -- i.e., they mean the same thing. Don't worry about that. I worked on the premise that judges are people, people are different, and one phrasing may ring a bell with one individual whereas a different phrasing will make the same meaning sink in for a different individual. Besides, you aren't an attorney, you haven't been to law school, and you haven't passed the bar. You cannot be expected to know which objections are redundant and which are not. (Incidentally, although Hearsay and Lacks Personal Knowledge are often lumped together, they are NOT the same objection and do NOT mean the same thing -- use both of them.) Also, I will note, that although you will object on the grounds of Hearsay to EVERYTHING (witness testimony, declarations and affidavits, attorney trying to testify, and all documents), this was NOT the objection that won my case for me -- and Lacks Personal Knowledge should be used every time as well. The key objections in my case were "Lacks Foundation" and "Lacks Authentication." If I had not "rambled on", those would not have gotten in there and I might not have won my case -- although my written MIL and trial brief might still have carried the day, and I did refer the judge to those documents for clarification and argument. 3) AFTER you complete your MIL(s) and your trial brief, prepare your trial binder. That will be your arsenal, your fortress, and your bible. Treat it as such.

Here's one for standing:

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the United States Sumpreme Court emphasized that in order to have standing, a plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, which must be concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, as opposed to conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). You could possibly argue that their claim of ownership is based upon conjecture because the bill of sale does not reference either your name or the alleged account number. Therefore, the plaintiff has not proven that any account allegedly owed by you was included in the alleged sale of accounts from Bank of America to CACH, LLC. Since the plaintiff has not proven ownership of the alleged account, they have not proven that they have suffered an injury in fact. No injury, no standing to sue.

DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY FINAL JUDGEMENT


http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/317665-pretrial-for-cach-llc-please-help/page-56
Color me wrong if need be, but the affidavit is NOT from BofA -- it is from a 'subsidiary of BofA called "FIA Card Services." That is NOT BofA. Where is the affidavit from BofA? There isn't one! Plus, as I pointed out on a PM, BofA shows a placement date of 5/17/2012, while FIA Card Services shows they purchased the alleged account on 5/14/2012. http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/318338-cach-vs-lr-knight-update-8-27-

13-need-input-please/page-4

Вам также может понравиться