Jump to content

JDB Affidavit


Recommended Posts

I decided to start this thread because the other one I had started was getting kind of long and was on a different topic.

I guess I'll start my question with this:

Why do JDB try to use evidence they know most likely won't stand up in court?

Edited by JoeSS870
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read your post, I thought "OOOH, I know the answer to that!". Then I saw that Willing and 1stStep had covered it. :)

I'll add that, occasionally, there are judges who appear to be prejudiced against Pro Ses, and others who will simply allow evidence that shouldn't be admitted. We Pro Ses have to do our homework which means research, research, and more research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys I posted a duplicate of the affidavit that the JDB sent me in their response to my discovery.

Here is the the link

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kbJ79yZwOXAsP1mYxE0iyo3JaBDj6P7WDxso2kH5wLY/edit?pli=1

Tell me what you guys think. I just found out that here is florida I can file a motion to strike at anytime, so I'm thinking about striking this affidavit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the whole thing !!! For the life of me I don't know why you want to strike this. This is the best thing I've ever seen. I can't believe they actually sent you this. This is classic. I've saved the doc and sent it to some friends.

You could have way too much fun in court with this. This affidavit needs to be a sticky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do JDB try to use evidence they know most likely won't stand up in court?

The real answer may surprise you. The answer is that it WILL stand up in many state courts IF YOU DON"T OBJECT!

This case will really help you understand the legal objections to an affidavit like this. Waiver is addressed in footnote 6:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/resources/311745-missouri-supreme-court-opinion-cach-case.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that affidavit is an obvious attempt to both weasel around the hearsay rules and intimidate at the same time.

"Maybe if we bury them in ****, they won't notice that the rest of our evidence is lacking and they'll get scared because the affidavit is really, really long so we must know what we're talking about."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else got any opinions on the Affidavit I posted?

ColtFan1972, how come you don't think I should strike?

My guess is that he would have fun not letting them know what he thinks of it until it is too late for them to do anything about it, then on the day of trial, he would start tearing it apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the purchase file, the date of last payment was 10/23/2008. In one of your previous posts, you stated they filed suit on 11/4/2011. I haven't gone back through all of your posts, but did you claim the SOL as an affirmative defense? HSBC is a DE corporation. DE's SOL is 3 years.

"Florida courts consider the statute of limitations to be substantive, and therefore the statute of limitations of the parties' chosen forum will apply where there exists a contractual choice of laws provision." Gaisser v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1273 - Dist. Court, SD Florida 2008

"In Florida, a choice of law provision of a contract is presumptively valid unless the party seeking to avoid it shows that application of the chosen law 'contravenes [a] strong public policy' of Florida." Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. Du-Pont De Nemours and Co., 761 So.2d 306, 311 (Fla.2000)

The above states that choice provision is valid unless it's contrary to "strong public policy of Florida". The case law below (especially from the FL Supreme Court) takes care of that.

"In Burroughs, the Florida Supreme Court determined that a "contractual provision shortening the period of time for filing a suit was not contrary to a strong public policy." Maxcess, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 433 F. 3d 1337 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2005

"We therefore conclude that the contractual provision shortening the period of time for filing a suit was not contrary to a strong public policy." Burroughs Corp. v. Suntogs of Miami, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1166 - Fla: Supreme Court 1985

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that he would have fun not letting them know what he thinks of it until it is too late for them to do anything about it, then on the day of trial, he would start tearing it apart.

I'm that easy to read? :D

OP,

I'm just stunned (I know should not be) they are trying to pass this garbage off. There is no way you would keep me out of a courtroom on this one. I'd camp out a week in advance of the trial just to make sure there is no way I'd miss that court date.

If you would have seen the shock and the disgusted look on the Judge's face when the other side tried to simply argue a business records exception to their hearsay, you would understand. I can't even imagine the reaction if they actually tried to argue business records because they took a tour of the place and learned about HSBC.

However, as I've posted many times and in your other thread, and CALAWYER has confirmed, you still have to raise a dispute.

There are times where your lack of objection or counter argument can be deemed as accepting the evidence and you wave any objection.

Dueling hearsay affidavits mean a material fact dispute, that means no summary judgment and that means a trial. Strike if you want and have the law backing you up on it. I'm just saying, me personally, I would simply dare them and beg them to get that witness to court or try to introduce that affidavit as an exception to hearsay. I'd send a limo to the airport to pick the witness up.

On a side note, how much intimate details and procedures do you think HSBC

really disclosed to this person. That is assuming there was ever a tour or discussion with HSBC, a big assumption.

Think about it. Millions of customers social security numbers, credit card details, and personal banking info all in the accounts and files of HSBC customers and they are going to let a non employee of another business, have enough access to those records to competently testify as to the business procedures of HSBC?

Can you even imagine the outrage and bad press if that got out. Can you just see HSBC trying to explain how they are providing personal info of their customers to a junk debt buyer before there is even a sale to that junk debt buyer made?

Now how fun would that be if the highly unlikely came true and they produced the witness that signed that affidavit and threw them on the witness stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm that easy to read? :D

OP,

I'm just stunned (I know should not be) they are trying to pass this garbage off. There is no way you would keep me out of a courtroom on this one. I'd camp out a week in advance of the trial just to make sure there is no way I'd miss that court date.

If you would have seen the shock and the disgusted look on the Judge's face when the other side tried to simply argue a business records exception to their hearsay, you would understand. I can't even imagine the reaction if they actually tried to argue business records because they took a tour of the place and learned about HSBC.

LMAO you would've loved to had been a fly on the wall at my trial when the JDB atty try to submit one of these. My judge was disgusted. For me it felt like 'real' evidence. I stood up straight & tall as I objected & gave my reasons & watched the JDB atty go bonkers trying to get it in as 'business records'.

Looking back it was funny as he wasn't expecting me to stand up to him. I didn't realized I was able to keep it out until after the minutes came in. But it was easy. So glad I listened to you guys on here & went to trial. :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO you would've loved to had been a fly on the wall at my trial when the JDB atty try to submit one of these. My judge was disgusted. For me it felt like 'real' evidence. I stood up straight & tall as I objected & gave my reasons & watched the JDB atty go bonkers trying to get it in as 'business records'.

Looking back it was funny as he wasn't expecting me to stand up to him. I didn't realized I was able to keep it out until after the minutes came in. But it was easy. So glad I listened to you guys on here & went to trial. :mrgreen:

Why do they serve this stuff if it's the equivalent of hearsay?

VLDCA nailed it above (see bold).

Because to most pro-se's this is all brand new (the law, rules of evidence, etc.). To them, it seems "real enough." Plaintiffs count on that. They see a bunch of legal jargon, someone "swearing" they KNOW how the records were made, generic statements that may or may not present their full name, actual address, partial or full account number, etc. For some, there may be just enough truth to be scary to a defendant swimming legal waters for the first time.

I read about CCP 98's on another forum's archives, before registering here. I've seen defendant's totally cave to the "all is lost" moment, and all but beg the other side to have mercy on them.

".... ummmm, is there anyway we may be able to still settle for that low, low super generous rate, you offered way back when...PLEEEASSE????

:rolleyes:

Because they don't know "the rules of evidence" and how to attack what the other side is presenting, in court during trial.

The opposition/plaintiff counts on fear to achieve their goals, not necessarily truth. They get that for some pro se's it's enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if I decide to strike and I mean if. That means it couldn't be used in court correct?

If a material striked is not allowed in court, the JDB attorney's pretty much have nothing, if I'm not mistaken.

They do have this "suppose" sale file I say that because the paper they attached to the bill of sale doesn't say sale file or exhibit "a" as stated in the bill of sale.

So how would I object to a sale file, since it looks like something that I could personally made at home. I think it would be great to go to court with a sale file I made up that looks just like theirs, to prove my case.

Like everyone said, JDB's try to scare the Pro Se with this stuff. When I first read it I knew it was crap in my view. Like ColtFan1972, is HSBC going to really let an non-employee come in and let them look at how they work and operate, but also see other people information, which is suppose to be confidential? I highly think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

calawyer, you mean by object to it, like strike it with a motion?

In California, you can just object when they try to introduce it at trial into evidence. Or, you can prepare a short MIL and hand it up to the Judge before trial. Either way, you must object or it will proabably be admitted into evidence. Very few Judges will make the objection for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In California, you can just object when they try to introduce it at trial into evidence.

In other words, lay low, make them think they got you and then watch the look on their face when they realize they just got set up.

On a side note, there is another benefit of taking it to trial when you know you're going to win, Res judicata gets attached (like jeopardy being attached in a criminal trial). None of this dismissal w/o prejudice so we can get our evidence better once we see the person we sued is not the sucker we took them for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.