Anon Amos

Members
  • Content Count

    5,072
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    155

Everything posted by Anon Amos

  1. It is being used to try to convince you to settle. It only proves that they don't have the document they need, it even says they don't have the document anymore. And as far as CACH goes "if you have seen one you have seen them all". Mine looks just like yours, even signed by the same person, only the numbers have changed. And they are not trying to introduce it as evidence now so it is really nothing. They use it to intimidate you and try to get you to settle, as they now know you are fighting. It is WORTHLESS unless you give it "weight" and submit to it.
  2. I think we have been agreeing on about 95%, I should present my argument better, I kind of rush thru it, but on the last 5% I will "stretch: the limits of a legal theory or "push the envelope" if you will, let the judge decide. As long as it doesn't damage the defense, it keeps the jdb working the case and it may drive them away. "In my opinion any affidavit by the jdb or OC is worthless" That's beautiful! It will make a nice motto
  3. I know your not. I agree with you that it's not a business record and that is my point. Most cases (at least mine was) we get the affidavit and no records (unless we fight in discovery)so it's not a business record then it's just a worthless piece of paper. When we get the declaration in lieu of live testimony from them 30 days before trial that is the paper to be concerned about, and to object, answer, strike, subpoena, and if necessary fight it in trial.
  4. In CA a party to the case cannot serve papers to the other party, has to be done by a non party to the case and with a" proof of service form " I was able to use it to my advantage however when the lawyer went on record (on a motion he filed) and lied about the date he served me a document. I used his proof of service and the envelope against him, keep everything you get from these bottom feeders in a file, you never know when an idiotic rule and something as insignificant as an envelope can be used against them.
  5. That's a good point, I didn't even think of that. Here's a point maybe we all missed (myself included): At the time we receive the affidavit(2-3 months before trial) there's no need to file a motion to strike because at this time the jdb is not introducing it as evidence, and at the very least we are going to request a witness & exhibit list (and file a trial brief) 30 days before trial. We will see if it makes the list. Not only that but it's not so much as "does it meet the business records exception to hearsay" but is it even admissible as a "business record"? And if it does find it's
  6. Regarding CACH affidavits & notaries, I googled the name of the notary on the affidavit of sale I got from CACH that and the name came up on a cach document where now the name of the notary was an employee of CACH and the custodian of records. So the notary works for CACH, (I don't know if that is legal or not) but it is untrustworthy and might be used an an additional objection to an affidavit. Google any names you receive regarding jdb's, never know what you may find.
  7. I do agree with you guys a lot. However I always tried to push the envelope and try a "far stretch" so to speak.The judge determines what will be allowed and it seems she has a good judge who is not prejudiced against her. I would argue that: they are the one bringing the case, they should produce the witness if they want to back up the affidavit( after all, if they had the original document they would not need the affidavit) and if it had they had the original document and the affidavit THEN it would make more sense that the judge MIGHT tell the defendant to subpoena (I doubt it though) I wou
  8. Very good, and again I agree, I have been saying that all along, however (and I could be wrong) but I think I read somewhere where someone said the defendant would have to subpoena the affiant.
  9. I agree with you guys that the attorney can speak for the plaintiff, read anything stated on the pleadings etc., but my thinking was wen he reads the complaint, allegations or any memorandum or pleadings, if you questioned and objected to everything he would have to "stand behind the pleadings" and would not be able to TESTIFY since he is not the plaintiff or a party to the case, so I don't think he would be able to prove up the allegations. Not so much whether or not he gets sworn in, but can, he prove the case if he can't testify and you object and deny everything he says?
  10. (regarding the affidavit) See if you can file a motion to strike as hearsay. The reason I included the business records exemption to the hearsay rule earlier was because CACH tried to get it admitted as a business record. If the judge does not throw it out then go to trial and make them prove the allegations. They will drop the case before they do that. Contrary to popular opinion, at TRIAL there will have to be someone there from CACH(plaintiff) and the lawyer would need a witness to prove his case, it won't be worth it for them.
  11. You don't want the affiant there, nor due you have the burden of proof. If you are attacking the affidavit then they will have to prove up the allegations, you don't have to help them, the burden of proof is theirs. You are thinking right and you can win. Everyone told me the same thing as well, I did not listen, and CACH dropped the case. The same thing can happen for you, you do not need to subpoena them, and if you did you would have to pay them for air fair, hotel, food and wages, the same stuff they would have to pay if they wanted to pursue this in trial, that is why they will drop it.
  12. She can attack it as the business records exemption end, I believe the dates were wrong so it was not made during at or near the time of the event, the affiant has not shown first hand knowledge, the document was created for the sake of litigation since the date was not near the time of the event. If she checks the business records exemption to the hearsay rule she can beat it, myself and others have.
  13. Our opinions differ but they are close. If you think about it, no matter what state, there absolutely has to be two parties are else you cannot have a trial, unless you waive your rights and allow it to be just you and the lawyer. If a defendant did not show up for court the plaintiff would win. Whats the difference? The difference is the plaintiff has the burden of proof, I think people fail to realize the importance of that. I watched 8 cases in a row where the defendant lost to a lawyer and an affidavit and it did not have to happen, it most certainly did not happen to me. In each case the
  14. when i get more time i will see what i can find that may be of help. the rules are all different but they are often close and in any state constant objection works. I will look into it, but my argument is that you need two parties to a case. When the judge swears you in he won't have another party to swear in if your accuser is not there. Attorney's can't testify against you, and they would have to be sworn in if they could. Every Time the attorney spoke you could object on the grounds that it is hearsay, and he has no personal or firsthand knowledge of anything thing he is speaking about or
  15. CACH gave me the same thing, with a bad date as well. I used my states rules of evidence to file a motion to exclude evidence under the grounds 1) the writing was not made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event. 2) the source of information and method and time of preparation were not such as to indicate its trustworthiness, 3) the writing was not made in the regular course of a business 4) the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation. My argument for # 4 was that the affiant has not laid a foundation establishing her as custodi
  16. Jurisdiction means the claim can be heard by the court. Yes. The court can hear the claim. All it needs is two parties to the case, sworn in. In this case there would be no damaged party, only the affidavit and a lawyer. The lawyer is not a party to the case, he can only represent his client, he can not be sworn in and testify against you. Unless of course you allow it by not objecting to the affidavit and insisting the other party to the case be in the court, which would be allowing the court jurisdiction.If the lawyer does not want to call the jdb as a witness he doesn't have to. However he
  17. I was having the same problem with my case, but I told them the rule says " by deposition", and they are supposed to give you opportunity to attend the deposition so you would have a chance to cross examine without being in court. An affidavit is not a deposition. I objected to the same circumstance and CACH dropped the case, even after they had put a lot of effort into it,
  18. You are exactly right, they need the witness, keep objecting to everything they do. I had a corrupt judge who told me I would have to be the one to subpoena - not so- CACH dropped their case because I made sure they were going to have to produce witnesses-from cach, & BofA. Check your evidence rules. Make sure the lawyer is not there by himself, he can not testify-he needs someone from cach, otherwise there is no damaged party-the court doses not have jurisdiction unless you allow it. cach will dismiss before they fly witnesses to court- no need to settle. If you find the civil jury instru
  19. I fought CACH for a year and finally got them to dismiss with prejudice. The documents they come up with are usually recreated and hearsay, you must object to them. They depend on you accepting them for what they say they are. Learn about the rules of evidence in your state, especially the business records exemption to the hearsay rule. Also, it may be that if you object that a lawyer may not be able to appear at the trial (if it goes that far). Make sure that they also have someone from CACH as well as the bank at trial (they will probably drop the case because they don't want to do that). I