Jump to content

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


browniebrownie141
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Anon Amos, @calawyer, & others

 

refering to posting #290:

 

1. The causes of action is both open book & account stated. I saw from somewhere, durinf cross examination, if JDB's witness cannot fully accounted for all accounting details, they could ONLY get the portion of the $$ they could "account for" IF they win the case. I guess I would prepare for questioning. But is it a GROUND for MIL ?

 

2. How about "Objections to Plaintiff's CCP 96 Reply" as they prepared 2 days late ( from their own attorney signature/ date & their proof of service signature also October 22nd. ( 2 days pass the October 20) --Anon Amos thinks it's timely!

 

3. "they have not properly identified the witness as the code requires"/ how they NOT comply with CCP 98, Detail Please !

 

4. Should I "Objections to ALL their witness's Declaration in Lieu of Testimony, just in case if they try something funny later? Just to have my "Objections to their CCP 98 on the record ?

 

5. Should I also go aheag to Subpoena one of the witness ANYWAY, just to cover my base?? ( I read, You BOTH ALREADY TOLD ME, )...but still...

 

6. I further check online, turns out many of JDB's cases, also using a San Diego County address, 138 miles away from the Trial court-North of Los Angeles County.

 

Million thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@calawyer, @Anon Amos and others:

 

Can you give me more detail(s) as to how they DO NOT COMPLY with CCP 96 besides the point I found ( they are 2 days late) ....

 

Can you please once again to provide the "link" of yr examples....

 

Million thanks

 

 

CCP 96 requires  parties to list witnesses that they "intend to call at trial".  Her, plaintiff didn't.  It listed witnesses that it MAY call at trial.  Big difference.

 

I don't have a link handy.   Search my posts for CCP 96 response and I think you will find it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos, @calawyer, & others

 

refering to posting #290:

 

1. The causes of action is both open book & account stated. I saw from somewhere, durinf cross examination, if JDB's witness cannot fully accounted for all accounting details, they could ONLY get the portion of the $$ they could "account for" IF they win the case. I guess I would prepare for questioning. But is it a GROUND for MIL ?

 

Not a ground for MIL.  You won't know until they put on evidence.  They say they intend to bring documents you have never seen to trial.

 

2. How about "Objections to Plaintiff's CCP 96 Reply" as they prepared 2 days late ( from their own attorney signature/ date & their proof of service signature also October 22nd. ( 2 days pass the October 20) --Anon Amos thinks it's timely!

 

They get an extra 5 days if you mailed the CCP 96 request.  20+5days from September 29 is October 24.  They served it 2 days early.

 

3. "they have not properly identified the witness as the code requires"/ how they NOT comply with CCP 98, Detail Please !

 

See above.

 

4. Should I "Objections to ALL their witness's Declaration in Lieu of Testimony, just in case if they try something funny later? Just to have my "Objections to their CCP 98 on the record ?

 

I am still confused about this.  You have not received a declaration in lieu.  Have you???

 

5. Should I also go aheag to Subpoena one of the witness ANYWAY, just to cover my base?? ( I read, You BOTH ALREADY TOLD ME, )...but still...

 

You know the answer.  No.  Why would you want to subpoena the witness?  If no witness shows up at all, you win.  The only reason you ever want to subpoena a witness is if they have a declaration which will be admissible at trial UNLESS you subpoena the witness.

 

6. I further check online, turns out many of JDB's cases, also using a San Diego County address, 138 miles away from the Trial court-North of Los Angeles County.

 

Million thanks

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@Anon Amos, @calawyer, & others

 

refering to posting #290:

 

1. The causes of action is both open book & account stated. I saw from somewhere, durinf cross examination, if JDB's witness cannot fully accounted for all accounting details, they could ONLY get the portion of the $$ they could "account for" IF they win the case. I guess I would prepare for questioning. But is it a GROUND for MIL ?

 

Not a ground for MIL.  You won't know until they put on evidence.  They say they intend to bring documents you have never seen to trial.

 

2. How about "Objections to Plaintiff's CCP 96 Reply" as they prepared 2 days late ( from their own attorney signature/ date & their proof of service signature also October 22nd. ( 2 days pass the October 20) --Anon Amos thinks it's timely!

 

They get an extra 5 days if you mailed the CCP 96 request.  20+5days from September 29 is October 24.  They served it 2 days early.

 

3. "they have not properly identified the witness as the code requires"/ how they NOT comply with CCP 98, Detail Please !

 

See above.

 

4. Should I "Objections to ALL their witness's Declaration in Lieu of Testimony, just in case if they try something funny later? Just to have my "Objections to their CCP 98 on the record ?

 

I am still confused about this.  You have not received a declaration in lieu.  Have you???

 

5. Should I also go aheag to Subpoena one of the witness ANYWAY, just to cover my base?? ( I read, You BOTH ALREADY TOLD ME, )...but still...

 

You know the answer.  No.  Why would you want to subpoena the witness?  If no witness shows up at all, you win.  The only reason you ever want to subpoena a witness is if they have a declaration which will be admissible at trial UNLESS you subpoena the witness.

 

6. I further check online, turns out many of JDB's cases, also using a San Diego County address, 138 miles away from the Trial court-North of Los Angeles County.

 

Million thanks

@calawyer, @Anon Amos :

 

No I HAVE NOT RECEIEVD plaintiff's Declaration in Lieu of Testimony. Non of the document I received has an heading/ description like that.

 

This is 1 reason why, I asked earlier, upon showing to you all with the document-- I asked: is this REPLY to my CCP 96 Or is it their CCP98. 

 

I know, their deadline for sending me CCP 98 had passed.

 

As I mentioned, last night I did some searching, and Yes, I have been preparing to "Live-trial "preparation. I have been reading and got on Court-call, listening to " court in session"....trying to get myself NO FEAR, now I am quite comfortable with court environment. I even went to sit in at downtown Los Angeles Federal Court and Superior Court to see/ hear different people court cases in session.

 

Refering to your earlier comment: ( they DID NOT used the word INTEND, but they also DID NOT use the word MAY )

 

Posting #284 my photos of document Page 1 / line #18/19 : it's "Witnesses to be called at trial"

And ................................................................./ line #22/23 : In the event Myrell Johns (listed as #2 witness; they listed ME as #1 witness) becomes unavailable for trial, plaintiff will call another of its custodian of records...

 

Confirm to KICK them on this ?

 

Million thanks

 

You have Millions Millions of writing.....the heading I will be searching under yr user name & ccp96, right ?

 

Meanwhile, I finalise my trial brief and others,...

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The Code of Civil Procedure says "intend" CCP 96).  Here is an exemplar for a letter:

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/324635-ccp-96-answered-and-i-have-big-questionstrial-date-coming/page-2#entry1306197

 

 

@calawyer:

 

Ok I understood the importance of the word "INTEND" was missing, although they did'nt use the word "MAY".

 

-they did provided address, but they did not indicated it's JDB attorney office. ....checked internet, it's either another attorney office or guarrany bank or PC store...etc. But I also notice, from this forum, JDB have been using this & 2nd san diego address....it just they DID NOT states it's JDB address.

 

-as they DID NOT announce themselves as JDB counsel office address, but rather, just a plain address looks they can be reached there. Do you really think it serves any good by writing this letter in the middle of this ? so say they come back and stated witness #2 and ME are intended to call, then,...??

 

Here is what I think/ guess.....(1) they would bring a live witness to trial; or (2) somehow along the way, they knew they forgot the CCP98 deadline, they perhaps will try to submit a no-good CCP98 later --betting that I would not know the deadline.

 

Should I send them a letter?.... indicating that their CCP98 deadline had passed, & on the record, i did not received any CCP98 from them.

 

Or the letter carry you message and my above ??

 

Looking at the sample letter below:

 

CCP 96 requires Plaintiff to list 1) the names and addresses of 2) the witnesses it intends to call at trial. Plaintiff has done neither. Instead it has listed the names of 5 witnesses it may call at trial. Nor has it provided addresses. Instead it has given the address of plaintiff's counsel.

Plaintiff's failure to identify the witnesses it intends to call at trial (or provide true addresses), has hampered Defendant's ability to prepare for trial. Please take notice that Defendant intends to object if Plaintiff attempts to call any of these witnesses at trial.

XXOO

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@calawyer:

 

Ok I understood the importance of the word "INTEND" was missing, although they did'nt use the word "MAY".

 

****basically they said they would pull witness from the following pool of names. They did not tell you who they intend to call and who you should expect to cross examine and to prepare for and research them, unless you did it for every one they listed.  It's not how the code is written, and you should use everything against them. You send the meet and confer letter on this telling them you want to know exactly who the witness is and their address as the code requires or you will object to the calling of any witnesses at trial.***********

 

 

 

-they did provided address, but they did not indicated it's JDB attorney office. ....checked internet, it's either another attorney office or guarrany bank or PC store...etc. But I also notice, from this forum, JDB have been using this & 2nd san diego address....it just they DID NOT states it's JDB address.

 

****I believe the significance here is that they did not give you the actual  address of the witness. If you wanted to research them you would want their name and address to see what comes up. Here you don't even know what state they're from. You don't need to contact them and you already had the lawyers address (that does you no good here)*************

 

 

 

-as they DID NOT announce themselves as JDB counsel office address, but rather, just a plain address looks they can be reached there. Do you really think it serves any good by writing this letter in the middle of this ?

 

***********I think it serves a good purpose (sending the letter) and it sends a good message to them as well as puts pressure on them. Also, I doubt they are hanging around the law office and can be reached there, and you don't need to reach them anyway. You just want the lawyers to have to spend time on this and tell you the witness address (and who they intend to call) because that's what the code says and you are going to make them follow it (if they don't like then they can dismiss the case).***********

 

 

so say they come back and stated witness #2 and ME are intended to call, then,...??

 

*************Then you will know EXACTLY who will be the witness and you can prepare and research the witness. That's due process (it would be anyway, although a little late and you had to force it out of them). You prepare your list of questions to cross examine the witness******** 

 

 

 

 

Should I send them a letter?.... indicating that their CCP98 deadline had passed, & on the record, i did not received any CCP98 from them.

 

***********NO. You do not have to explain to them the code (just the one they are breaking above) They do not have to send a ccp 98. It just may be that they don't intend to.**********

 

 

Looking at the sample letter below:

 

CCP 96 requires Plaintiff to list 1) the names and addresses of 2) the witnesses it intends to call at trial. Plaintiff has done neither. Instead it has listed the names of 5 witnesses it may call at trial. Nor has it provided addresses. Instead it has given the address of plaintiff's counsel.

Plaintiff's failure to identify the witnesses it intends to call at trial (or provide true addresses), has hampered Defendant's ability to prepare for trial. Please take notice that Defendant intends to object if Plaintiff attempts to call any of these witnesses at trial.

XXOO

 

 

*******^^^^^^^ That letter is perfect. I would have already sent it (certified mail). It is exactly what's going on here and is the only part of the code they have violated. You don't let them get away with anything and you keep constant pressure on them (remind them who they're dealing with).**********

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Calawyer: Ok...I got your PM.

 

@Anon Amos, and All other Ladies & Gentlemen here:

 

Now, I have a list of evidence(s) that I would like to bring to Court trial.

 

JDB/ Attorney DID NOT send me CCP 96.

 

And what exactly do I need to write on Declaration to make it GOOD ?

 

Description of document(s) to be produced at trial:

  1. Defendant’s Discovery Request(s) AND Plaintiff’s Discovery Replies.
  2. Defendant’s Amended Discovery reply to Plaintiff’s Discovery Request.
  3. Letter from HSBC, indicating that Defendant had another account with HSBC but closed due to inactivity/ no amount was owed.
  4. Letter sent from defendant to Capital One and mailing details, as HSBC Bank Neveda/ card services was acquired by Capital One, asking for confirmation.
  5. Letter from Capital One to defendant, confirming account information.
  6. Letter from Credit rating agency indicating the disputed account /account activity were removed from defendant’s credit report after receipt the disputing request and evidence(s) from defendant.
  7. NY Times newspaper /online reported that HSBC card service was acquired by Capital One.

 

Defendant reserves the right to call other witnesses and use evidence(s) for impeachment purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos, @calawyer AND other Ladies & Gentlemen:

 

Do I need to name their witnesses on my witnesses list IN ORDER TO cross exam them ?  

 

And once again, is that the usual "declaration" --"under prejury under that state of calfornia...all foregoing statement/ evidence are true and correct "is good enough for a witness/evidence list declaration ??

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brownie,

 

You do not need to list the evidence (they have to, you don't). You do not need to list their witnesses to cross examine them (they are supposed to be the one's telling you who they will call), and you do not need to write a declaration. If you have evidence to introduce you just bring it to trial (or I suppose you could file it with the clerk), but your evidence is for impeachment purposes only so you don't have to do all that.

 

Also. some of the evidence on your list is already on their list anyway. And I don't know that some of the stuff on your list will help you anyway. I would rather be attacking their evidence then talking to a judge about a NY Times online report.

 

I think you have gotten sidetracked and are now stuck on this subject (as we have covered it), not only that; but if you did have to give the a witness and evidence list (which you do not have to do), under ccp 96, you would already be late for doing that anyway. If you give them the ccp 96 list late they can just object that it is not timely and you didn't even need to send it in the first place.

 

The list of evidence  they gave you is what you should be working on. You should be drafting your objections to each piece of evidence and getting that filed  with the court, as well as trial brief (not your evidence list).

 

In my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the reason why I asked (in the posting#311), is that this ESQ most likely will be the one representing the JDB at court trial, as she appeared  some other cases just recently been done.

 

so,please, anyone, who has info about/ past experience with this ESQ, please let me know....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just came back from Court Trial.

 

I Lost. I told the Judge I will be filing the Appeal on the spot.

 

There are a few things:

 

1. JDB's witness showed up at trial, although I tried as hard as i could to attack, even brought up People Vs. Dorsey 1974 appeal case law. No use.

 

2. The JDB attorney provided a big folder, looks nice, but inside I found there was 1 piece- Affidavit hiding, but I caught it, brought that up to Judge, got

that kicked out because it was not listed in CCP 96 reply from plaintiff. Judge precluded that piece OUT, but at the end, not good enough.

 

3. I could not help from thinking, did the Judge errored on the issue of Lack of privity/ broken privity. As I repeated brought it up. But does NOT seems to interest him? Perhpas I did it in a incorrect way? I kept repeating HSBC Trust 1- to Trust 3- Trust 4 and how JDB do not have those document= broken chain of custody of document(s); = broken privity.

 

Like I mentioned, I am emotionally prepared. Rocha, Rogers had to file appeal.

 

Just of my head, I have 15 days to file my appeal, right ?

 

I will be focusing on the Issue of how JDB witness should be unqualified based on People Vs. Dorsey 1974.

 

And Lack of / Broken Privity.

 

If anyone can brain storm Me other these 2 reason(s), please......

 

Million thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you did a very good job to me.  Good work catching the affidavit that was not in the CCP 96 response.  That could be key to your appeal.

 

Some judges just ignore the entire assignment issue.  They don't understand that, without a proper assignment, plaintiff can't sue in court.  And it matters to you because with all of these assignments flying around, someone else could actually own your account. 

 

Here is a link to the California Court's information about a notice to appeal.  You should also look in the CCP and find the relevant statutes:  http://www.courts.ca.gov/12428.htm

 

Again, it sounds like you really did a good job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brownie, Good job! I know it's to late , but in your post #288, statement of witnesses,

you asked if anyone knew of Maria Marin, yes I do.

I received "Declaration of Plaintiff in Lieu of Personal Testimony" (Hunt&Henriques,Portfolio)

and she was the person to testify for Portfolio. Her address is:

Portfolio (employed) 140 corporate blvd, Norfolk, Virginia 23502.

She was to be at (20days before trial) C/O ABC Legal in san Bernardino.

This is how I got the ccp98 withdrawn.

But they are still bringing in witness. I have NO clue as to whom they are bring??

Or any other evidence??

My trial date is tomorrow, 11-14.

So Hunt&Hentiques are using names, address any way they want. Who knows who these people

really are. They are just names being used on paper.

On my Bill of Sale it shows a signature, Glenn Marino of Monogram Credit Services.

Glenn has not been President of this company since 2001, so I doubt he should still

be signing for them. He is now EVP for Synchrony Bank????

We are being sued by signatures that are???????????

Just FYI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Sorry to hear! I'm not an attorney yet, but it sounds like you may have something on appeal there. I'm up against PRA and am thinking that the witness may show up to my trial too. Did you get a chance to cross examine him? If so, what did the judge say about him not being an employee of the original creditor?

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...