bellasummer Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Hi,Can you tell me what they mean by this.I can't determine if they are intending on calling a witness up or they just answered to say"in the case that we might call up a witness"..The interrogatory question wasIdentify all persons whom you expect to call as factual witnesses and expert witnesses at trial.As for each state the subject matter.ANSQuestion seeks disclosure of plaintiff's trial strategy.Notwithstanding said objection,a representative of Plaintiff will testify as to Plaintiff's ownership of the subject account.Plaintiff doesn't intend on calling any expert witnessed at this time.Can anyone determine what is meant by that..Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerikaner83 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 basically they're saying that if they REALLY answer that question, it will tell you their strategy. That being said, they will have someone testifying to their ownership of the debt. Your job is to knock them off by hearsay. They have to have someone with intimate knowledge of the creation of the debt, and so on...get theme to admit they don't, then all this guy says is hearsay, and therefore inadmissable.Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellasummer Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Great this is the first I am realizing of this...I overlooked that answer..So you are saying that I must objec to that person having intimate knowledge of the creation of the debt when they are going to be saying that they own the debt etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerikaner83 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 I would, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtorshusband Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 If "Plaintiff" is the Original Creditor, said witness had darn well better be an employee of "Plaintiff" with personal knowledge of their record keeping system, this particular account, etc. If "Plaintiff" is a debt buyer, an employee of "Plaintiff" is unacceptable, as their testimony is hearsay. A debt buyer also must produce a representative of the Original Creditor with personal knowledge, etc.Good luck.DH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellasummer Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Witness is the plaintiff..Plaintiff is a JDB debtor's husband..So how should I tackle that with the judge.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellasummer Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 The OC sold it to a JDb who hired a lawyer in my state to represent them .i find it hard to believe they are flying a witness from Midwest to court for such a low debt...The plaintiff witness would be a JDB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellasummer Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 So it's hearsay even if the JDb is testifying to the ownership of debt,not the creation.....It seems to me that you're right,wouldnt there have to be the Original Creditor testifying to it as well...thanks..I'm super nervous now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellasummer Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 So do you suggest i take a xanax before or after court..Ahh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recovering Attorney Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 That is a BS answer. Essentially, they have no clue what 25 yr old the OC will send iwith a folder. But you desere to know witnesses in case you want to depose them. Write teh lawyer and tell them to fess uo or you will ask the court to compel discovery. Judges hate this kind of lame answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nascar Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Champagne to celebrate afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellasummer Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Nascar you are so funny..You make me laugh..thanks I needed to laugh I am getting all frazzled..How would they ever pay a "witness" to fly in from across the country to testify on just the account ownership..the debt is not that high..With all the lawyer fees they are paying.It makes no nense.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nascar Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 I expect good news tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellasummer Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 And quit it with thse smiley faces..They make me laugh even more.Especially that last one waiving at me..Recovering Attorney this isnt the OC we are talking about,,its the JDb that will be coming in..i doubt this person is real,,who would ever fly. in for that amount of debt., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellasummer Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Nascar,,thanks for the laughs:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merrybucks Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Question seeks disclosure of plaintiff's trial strategy.Notwithstanding said objection,a representative of Plaintiff will testify as to Plaintiff's ownership of the subject account.Plaintiff doesn't intend on calling any expert witnessed at this time.Looks like the rep. will testify only to the ownership of the debt. The attorney may even try to testify. Object if the attorney tries to testify. Object to any testimony by the rep. as heresay. It doesn't appear as if they intend to call anybody from the OC. Just be calm and don't let the attorney scare you. Object to documents as heresay or lacks foundation. The judge will let anything in unless you object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M&M Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 If the question the attorney asks the wirness.Invites the witness to narrate a series of occurrences, which may produce irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible testimony. Object with the question calls for narrative answer.If they try to get evidence in that presumes unproved facts.Objection the question assumes facts not in evidence.If the question invites or causes the witness to speculate or answer on the basis of conjecture. Objection the question calls for speculation. and the biggy as the others have said is hearsay. Make sure you object to everything you can just incase you have to appeal later. GOOD LUCK and let us know what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 It's actually not unusual. Do a search for Fairy Enchantresses experience with court. I would say everything their witness say is BS. Object whenever they open their mouths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts