browniebrownie141

Given with my situation now, how do I exclude evidence, with some concern!

Recommended Posts

 

 

You won't need as much authentication as they would because you are using it for impeachment purposes and it came from them. It's not hearsay because it is not being asserted to show the truth of the matter.

 

 

It is also the admission of a party opponent.  See Evid. Code section 1220 et. seq.  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1220-1228.1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dearest" Anon Amos & Calawyer:

 

So...from my end here,....I will be sending a letter to Original Creditor (certified with return signature receipt), and when the OC replies me, then, the OC 's replies (confirmation),  along with my letter, certified and signature receipt will be ok-as "authenicated", is that correct ?

 

And say the JDB will not send me their CCP 96, because they don't want me to show my evidance in court, then, how do I draft a pleading paper to file with the Court that I would like to submit....?

 

Million thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need their authentication. It's going to be easier for you to get this document into evidence then it will be for them to introduce their evidence. Different rules apply to you when introducing evidence; then the rules you have been learning that pertain to them. 

 

On the CCP 96; witnesses and evidence that is going to be used for impeachment purposes does not have to be listed (but that doesn't mean it can't be listed). Impeachment is questioning and protesting against, showing that something is not true, rather than asserting a document as fact and as true, and trying to get a ruling in your favor from it. This is a different set of circumstances here, and in  your favor.

 

And yes, you have "touched a few nerves" with these people. I think they lost patients with you a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen & Ladies:

 

Some confirmations please......

 

Which Subpoena form should I be using? (Don't want to use the WRONG form !! )

 

-Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance At Trial or Hearing (Subp-001)

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/subp001.pdf

 

OR is it: Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things at Trial or Hearing and Declaration (Subp-002)

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/subp002.pdf

 

Also, one of the Court Rules about MIL motion ( see below:) I don't quite understand....can anyone...explain to me in plain simple lanugage PLEASE??

3.57 MOTIONS IN LIMINE

 

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtrules/CurrentCourtRulesPDF/Chap3.pdf#page=27

 

(a) Required Declaration. Motions made for the purpose of precluding the mention or

 

display of inadmissible and prejudicial matter in the presence of the jury must be accompanied by

 

a declaration that includes the following:

 

(1) Specific identification of the matter alleged to be inadmissible and prejudicial;

 

(2) A representation to the court that the subject of the motion has been discussed

 

with opposing counsel, and that opposing counsel has either indicated that such matter will be

 

mentioned or displayed in the presence of the jury before it is admitted in evidence or that counsel

 

has refused to stipulate that such matter will not be mentioned or displayed in the presence of the

 

jury unless and until it is admitted in evidence;

 

(3) A statement of the specific prejudice that will be suffered by the moving party if

 

the motion is not granted; and

 

(4) If the motion seeks to make binding an answer given in response to discovery,

 

the declaration must set forth the question and the answer and state why the use of the answer for

 

imp eachment will not adequately protect the moving party against prejudice in the event that

 

evidence inconsistent with the answer is offered.

 

(B) Summary Adjudication Improper. A motion in limine may not be used for the purpose

 

of seeking summary judgment or the summary adjudication of an issue or issues. Those motions

 

may only be made in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c and applicable court

 

rules.

 

© Bifurcation of Issues Improper. A motion in limine may not be used for the purpose of

 

seeking an order to try an issue before the trial of another issue or issues. That motion may only be

made in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 598.

 

Million Million 100,000,000 thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use the Subp-001 form.  You do not want to request documents.

 

Not sure how to explain this rather lengthy rule.  Is there a certain section you don't understand?

 

In any event, I think it is best to call the brief about the CCP 98 declaration "Objection to Declaration of ______ (CCP 98)" instead of calling it a "Motion in Limine".  Then you won't need to understand the rule at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Calawyer:

 

Thank you very much, Sir !

 

I see, so that's the reason why you did that way--refering to the redacted & sample "shell" in Homeless's posting.

 

I was referring to #2: "....the motion has been discussed with JDB's attorney...", ....given such a tight deadline prior trial date, how do I NOT running out of time?? ( not more than 45 days prior trial SEND CCP96 to JDB; then they have 20 days + 5 to respond (most likely CCP98), then I filed OBJECTION to their CCP 98 & Subpeona....sheriff serve the subpoena + wait for sheriff's declaration....file MIL motion & trial brief and send JDB copies....( 5 days + 2 days? overnight mail) ...

 

How do I have time to "discuss" with JDB's attorney in the middle of all these?? Or should I just state in mail with Objection!?

 

And if I send my CCP 96 in overnight mail, they have 20 + 2 days right? Or still 20 + 5 days ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can gain some time by having a process server serve the subpoena. You can save a few days by overnighting the CCP 96 (I believe) but it's really not necessary. The discussion thing is not going to apply to you since you don't have a jury and are calling it an "objection" rather then "MIL" as Calawyer suggested.

 

You're going to have just enough time to do what you need to do, and if you don't have the information from the process server in time for your objection; you just bring it with you to trial.

 

The way you avoid running out of time is by doing just what you're doing: learning and being prepared. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dearest Anon Amos & Calawyer:

 

OK...I see.....I guess I am too nervious,...is'nt it ?

 

I guess I am trying to "map out" all crazy things that could "derailing" my path,....

 

......I saw from HomeLess's posting, he did'nt get JDB's trial brief until right before trial; saw from another posting that defendant did not wrote case# and title on Subpeona that the Judge had problem-- and Calawyer casted doubt on that; while some other ....

 

ok ok...I need to calm down a little bite,....I should be drafting my trial brief (using what you both helped me from my MSJ ) and wait-t0-see IF there is any other evidence(s) from JDB....

 

Thanks to you all....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen/ Ladies:

 

Do you think that they are trying to PULL a new trick(s) here?? ...

 

Yesterday, I received a letter from JDB's attorney ( see below for scanned copies ).

 

So far, I ONLY notice TWO issues.

 

1. The attorney used to be Donald Sherrill ( State bar#266038), now, this letter was sent from another one Anthony DiPiero (state bar# 268246). Both works for Hunt & Henriques.

 

2. From the copies they sent me, 1 pages stated that JDB purchased the alleged account 10/21/2011. However, the dated is NOT the same as stated on the so-called Bill of Sale ( which listed on the very first page of this posting )

 

The copies that they provided at this time, seems old stuff, (trying to cover their "behind" that they did not send me the "miranda notice" that I orginally pointed out. ) Other than that, seems to me those date(s) they mentioned, were referring to my discovery, bill of particular, motions, MSJ I filed Vs. them....

 

Can anyone think of.....any tricks that they are trying to do here ??....other than they wrote: Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this response ....

 

Oooh,....I fired all written Discovery, but I believe they still have 2-3 unused questions-written, ...Can anyone tell me WHEN is the closing time for them to ask for Discovery? ( FYI: summon was filed last June, 2013; trial date is set November 12, 2014)

 

I searched online, JDB's attorney:

Donald Sherrill ( #266038) admitted to State bar since 2009. (not much info)

Anthony DiPiero (#268246) also admitted since 2009.

-works for the JDB law firm Hunt & Henriques April 2010-Present

-clerk @ Adobe system

-law clerk @ Law office Robert & Elliot

-Santa Clara University of Law (2006-2009)

-Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

 

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/ ( info search state bar of california ) & linkedIn

 

Million thanks....scanned images of what I received follows....

 

Image-10.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Law firms shuffle lawyers around frequently.  That is a non-issue.

 

Are you saying that you have two Bills of sale, each with a different date?  If so, you are going to have fun at trial.

 

"Sir, I show you Exhibit 1.  Is this a true copy of the Bill of sale by which you allege that plaintiff purchased my account"?

 

When he says, "yes", you show him Exhibit 2 and wait for the stammering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Calawyer:

 

No, not exactly, that's NOT I mean.....but close ! There were a 2 page Bill of Sale, both identical to each other-I ONLY scanned one listed at the very begining of the posting Page1.

 

What I am saying, on posting #265, they stated that they purchased the alleged account 10/21/2011. But the 2 pages Bill of Sale has a different date. ...

 

I am trying to pay attention to detail, as I notice last time, from their reply to my MSJ, they changed the $ amount WithOUT filing an amend, but I caught it and brought it up to the judge.

 

p.s. I just got a PM from Anon Amos, he is saying he can't post anymore, his account got blocked !! Don't know why....did you hear anything from him ?

 

Thanks Calawyer !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Calawyer:

 

No, not exactly, that's NOT I mean.....but close ! There were a 2 page Bill of Sale, both identical to each other-I ONLY scanned one listed at the very begining of the posting Page1.

 

What I am saying, on posting #265, they stated that they purchased the alleged account 10/21/2011. But the 2 pages Bill of Sale has a different date. ...

 

I am trying to pay attention to detail, as I notice last time, from their reply to my MSJ, they changed the $ amount WithOUT filing an amend, but I caught it and brought it up to the judge.

 

p.s. I just got a PM from Anon Amos, he is saying he can't post anymore, his account got blocked !! Don't know why....did you hear anything from him ?

 

Thanks Calawyer !!

 

No one blocked Anon. He is one of the good guys.

 

THis is still helpful to you.  And your cross examination will be similar.  Who knows, maybe when you send a CCP 96, you will get yet another bill of sale.

Good catch by the way.  It is important to read the documents carefully.

 

 

Good cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brownie...you are an inspiration to all of us and legitimize the reason for CIS. You are part of the solution we are all seeking in our own unorthodox way. None of us wants to be here. But we are fortunate to be able to. We are blessed with good-hearted, caring members who innately feel the value in helping/assiting the "least sophisticated" credit agreement consumer. It's cases/situations like yours where the strong can help the weak and, as a relsult, lift us all up. Thank you CIS ! InProSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@InProSe: Hello there ! ....thanks for saying ...but honestly i am not that inspirational....just someone trying to get a JDB off my back.

 

But you are correct in saying that there are many good-hearted caring members here, that they "share" their valuable experience, and knowledge here at this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone point me to the right direction where can I find the form for " Statement of Non-Service"/ or called Due Declaration diligence"?

 

...a status report the server/ sheriff will fill it out--as the JDB's witness is not available at the address ccp98 stated.

 

thank you all.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone point me to the right direction where can I find the form for " Statement of Non-Service"/ or called Due Declaration diligence"?

 

...a status report the server/ sheriff will fill it out--as the JDB's witness is not available at the address ccp98 stated.

 

thank you all.....

 

The sheriff will prepare it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.