pampamk

In need of some direction, served, answered, received interrogatories

Recommended Posts

Well here it is.... I plan on filing it in the morning....

 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

 

 

 

      Defendant, xxxxx, pro se, invokes her right to Res Judicata, moves the Court for

a denial to Motion for Summary Judgement, and orders a dismissal of this entire action pursuant

to K.S.A. 61-2912, K.S.A. 60-241,K.S.A. 60-512, K.S.A. 60-518, K.S.A. 61-3402 and Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act 811. The plaintiff’s claim that there are no genuine issues of material

fact is entirely without merit. . Defendant asserts there are numerous genuine issues of material

fact, thus plaintiff in not entitled to Summary Judgement.  Korytkowski v. City of Ottawa, 152 P.

3d 53 58-59 - Kan: Supreme Court 2007. Mitchell v. City of Wichita, 12 P. 3d 402 59-60 - Kan:

Supreme Court 2000, Scott v. Hughes, 281 Kan. 642 644-645 - Kan: Supreme Court 2006, State

ex rel. Stovall v. Reliance Ins. Co., 107 P. 3d 1219 788-789 - Kan: Supreme Court 2004. See

also, Harrison v. Long, 241 Kan. 174, 176, 734 P.2d 1155 (1987) 176-177. Tri-County

Concerned Citizens, Inc., v. Board of Harper County Comm'rs, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1168, 1173,

1174 95 P.3d 1012 (2004) (citing  Dutoit v. Board of County Commr's., 233 Kan. 995, 1003, 667

P.2d 879 (1983)). Clanton v. Estivo, 988 P. 2d 254 - Kan: Court of Appeals 1999. Underhill

v.Thompson, 37 Kan. App. 2d 870, 874, 158 P.3d 987, rev. denied 285 Kan. ___ (2007);

seeK.S.A. 60-212(B).  Handy v. Reed, 32 Kan. App. 2d 247, 254, 81 P.3d 450 (2003), rev.

denied277 Kan. 923 (2004)  Slayden v. Sixta, 250 Kan. 23, 26, 825 P.2d 119 (1992).

 


 

 

      In support of said opposition, defendant respectfully refers the Court to the following

 

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgement.

 

 

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

 

I. RES JUDICATA

 

          1.       Defendant respectfully invokes her right to Res Judicata.

 

          2.       Plaintiff has brought this same claim against defendant twice, and twice the claim

 

has been dismissed.

 

          3.       Plaintiff should not be allowed to reinstate the lawsuit, knowing that a dismissal

 

operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in

 

any court of the United States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim. The

 

Plaintiff is litigating with unclean hands and depriving defendant of due process.

 

The doctrine of res judicata is a bar to a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of

 

action. It is founded upon the principle that the party, or some other with whom he is in privity,

 

has litigated, or had an opportunity to litigate, the same matter in a former action in a court of

 

competent jurisdiction. Penachio v. Walker, 207 Kan. 54, 57, 483 P.2d 1119 (1971). The salutary

 

rule of res judicata forbids a suitor from twice litigating a claim for relief against the same party.

 

The rule is binding, not only as to every question actually presented, considered and decided, but

 

also to every question which might have been presented and decided. Hutchinson Nat'l Bank &

 

Trust Co. v. English, 209 Kan. 127, 130, 495 P.2d 1011 (1972). The doctrine of res judicata

 

prevents the splitting of a single cause of action or claim into two or more suits; it requires that

 

all the grounds or theories upon which a cause of action or claim is founded be asserted in one

 


 

 

action or they will be barred in any subsequent action. Parsons Mobile Products, Inc. v.

 

Remmert, 216 Kan. 138, 140, 531 P.2d 435 (1975).

 

This rule is one of public policy. It is to the interest of the state that there be an end to litigation

 

and an end to the hardship on a party being vexed more than once for the same cause. The

 

doctrine of res judicata is, therefore, to be given a liberal application but not applied so rigidly as

 

to defeat the ends of justice. Wells, Administrator v. Ross, 204 Kan. 676, 678, 465 P.2d 966

 

(1970).

 

II. SUPREME COURT STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

 

          4.       Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement, a copy of which is attached hereto and

 

marked as Exhibit “A”, is based wholly on defendant’s answer to Interrogatory No.7 (see Exhibit

 

“A” pg.2, No.2) from Plaintiff’s First Combined Interrogatories and Request for Admissions

 

propounded to defendant, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B". 

 

Plaintiff stating no written agreement signed by the parties is required in a credit card situation,

 

citing K.S.A. 16-117, (see Exhibit “A” pg. 2, No.2), is irrelevant, in this instance, and is merely

 

Plaintiffs futile attempt to distract the Court from the genuine issues of this case.  The Defendant

 

asserts the Plaintiff completely understood that Defendant’s answer to No.7 was referring to a

 

contract between the Plaintiff and the Capital One Bank, NA.,( henceforth to be known as OC,

 

original creditor), not a contract between the Defendant and the OC, by Plaintiff’s third response

 

in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement (see Exhibit “A” pg. 2, No.3).

 

          5.       Plaintiff claims a copy of a Bill of Sale and its attachments, a copy of which is

 

attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C”, show legal standing to bring suit. Defendant’s

 

previous response to Request for Admissions No.4(see Exhibit “B" pg.5, No.4) already illustrates

 


 

a genuine issue of material fact, that being The Bill of Sale and its attachments do not reference

the defendant, nor the alleged account number, it merely alleges a transaction took place between

Capital One Bank, NA. and Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.  The Plaintiff's bill of sale does

not, in fact, identify any single account, be it defendant’s or anyone's. This creates a genuine

issue of material fact as to whether or not they even own the alleged debt, and therefore whether

or not they have sufficient legal standing to actually bring this action against Defendant.  Being

that the bill of sale does not prove the account in question was included in the sale of accounts

and doesn't specify which records were included with each account, any records submitted by the

Plaintiff are unauthenticated, inadmissible hearsay. Defendant respectfully makes a Motion to

Strike plaintiff’s bill of sale, its attachments, and all billing statements. (See, Motion to Strike,

attached)

          6.       Plaintiff lacks standing.

          7.       Plaintiff states Defendant's answer does not contain a denial or affirmative defense

and no counterclaim has been included, therefore, is an admission of the Petition. Defendant

denied all allegations in her answer to the complaint , a copy of which is attached hereto and

marked Exhibit “D”,. as well as numerous denials in the discovery. Defendant denies all

allegations, as Plaintiff lacks legal standing, genuine issues of material fact do indeed exist.. 

Furthermore, Defendant reserved her right to file affirmative defense and counter claims.

          8.       Plaintiff originally brought this suit in the wrong venue, but corrects the error by it's

dismissal.

          9.       Repeating the same error, plaintiff once again files in the wrong venue. This action

was dismissed by Order of the Court due to want of prosecution.

       

 

 

 

          10.     Now after these fatal errors in the plaintiff's claim; the running of the statute of

 

limitations bars the plaintiff from filing any further actions against the defendant, regardless of

 

whether or not it chooses the correct venue.

 

          11.     Plaintiff should not be allowed to reinstate the original lawsuit, now knowing that it

 

is indeed the wrong venue, and is now barred by the running of the statute of limitations. Again,

 

Plaintiff is litigating with unclean hands and depriving defendant of due process.

 

          12.     Plaintiff is barred from the bringing this suit by the running of the Statue of

 

Limitations. 

 

          13.     Genuine issues of material fact do exist and plaintiff is entitled to nothing.

 

Defendant has  filed with this honorable court a motion to dismiss showing a genuine issue of

 

fact. If a dismissal is not granted; defendant is entitled to a trial. 

 

 

III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY

 

     This court must view any evidence presented in the most favorable light to DEFENDANT,

not to the plaintiff, and if reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions from the evidence

presented, summary judgement must be denied. (see quote and citations below).  It is the

Defendant’s stance that reasonable minds could definitely differ as to the conclusions one could

draw from the "evidence" the plaintiff has presented.  A bill of sale that doesn’t even identify

Defendant or the alleged  account in any way?  Absolutely an issue...

 

Quote:

 

     “This court's standard of review when a motion for summary judgment has been granted is

 

well established and often recited:

 

    "`"Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to

 


 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

     The trial court is required to resolve all facts and inferences which may reasonably be drawn

from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought. When opposing a

motion for summary judgment, an adverse party must come forward with evidence to establish a

dispute as to a material fact. In order to preclude summary judgment, the facts subject to the

dispute must be material to the conclusive issues in the case. On appeal, we apply the same rules

and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the

evidence, summary judgment must be denied." (Emphasis added by defendant) Korytkowski

v. City of Ottawa, 152 P. 3d 53 58-59 - Kan: Supreme Court 2007. See also Mitchell v. City of

Wichita, 12 P. 3d 402 59-60 - Kan: Supreme Court 2000, Scott v. Hughes, 281 Kan. 642 644-645

- Kan: Supreme Court 2006, State ex rel. Stovall v. Reliance Ins. Co., 107 P. 3d 1219 788-789 -

Kan: Supreme Court 2004.

     It has long been recognized that standing imparts justiciability and must be determined as

threshold issue. See Harrison v. Long, 241 Kan. 174, 176, 734 P.2d 1155 (1987) 176-177.

     Standing to sue means that a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable

controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Tri-County Concerned Citizens,

Inc., v. Board of Harper County Comm'rs, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1168, 1173, 1174 95 P.3d 1012

(2004) (citing  Dutoit v. Board of County Commr's., 233 Kan. 995, 1003, 667 P.2d 879 (1983)).

     Plaintiff  brought the same action twice against the defendant. The first action was voluntarily

dismissed by plaintiff. The second action was dismissed by order of the Court for lack of

prosecution. Thereby barring the plaintiff from bringing a new lawsuit based on the same subject.

K.S.A. 60-241, a genuine issue of material fact.. 

    

 

 

 

     Statute 60-241: Dismissal of actions. (a) Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof. (1) By

 

plaintiff; Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal the dismissal is without prejudice,

 

except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a

 

plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of the United States or of any state an action based

 

on or including the same claim.    (B)   Involuntary dismissal; effect thereof. (1) For failure of

 

the plaintiff to prosecute, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim

 

against the defendant. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal

 

under this paragraph and any dismissal not provided for in this section, other than a dismissal for

 

lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under K.S.A. 60-219 and

 

amendments thereto, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

 

      Plaintiff requested reinstatement of first action, over a year after voluntary dismissal, by K.S

 

.A 60-518 plaintiff is limited to six months to reinstate, another genuine issue of material fact.

 

     60-518: New action, when. If any action be commenced within due time, and the plaintiff fail

 

in such action otherwise than upon the merits, and the time limited for the same shall have

 

expired, the plaintiff, or, if the plaintiff die, and the cause of action survive, his or her

 

representatives may commence a new action within six (6) months after such failure. 

  

     Defendant would like to bring the Courts attention that nothing in the savings statute justifies

 

the interpretation that a new action could be brought more than 1 year after that prior disposition.

 

976 Kan. at 91). A new action begun more than 1 year after the dismissal, whether it was a

 

second or third action, would be an enlargement of the time fixed by statute and would result in

 

permitting the plaintiff to dismiss and reinstate at will and indefinitely. (76 Kan. at 92). See,

 

Clanton v. Estivo, 988 P. 2d 254 - Kan: Court of Appeals 1999.

 


 

     The Statue of Limitations had expired before Plaintiff filed it’s Petition. Using Plaintiff’s own

admission in it’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement stating no written

agreement signed by the parties is required in a credit card situation, citing K.S.A. 16-117 (see

Exhibit A, pg. 2 No. 2) proves the Statute of Limitations is 3 years see K.S.A. 60-512.

     Plaintiff brought suit against defendant twice both claims were in the wrong venue. K.S.A.

61-3402, FDCPA 811,a genuine issue of material fact.

     61-3402: Actions against residents. An action against a resident of this state, other than an

action for which venue is otherwise specifically prescribed by law, may be brought in the county

in which:

      (a)   The defendant resides;

      (B)   the plaintiff resides if the defendant is served therein;

      ©   the cause of action arose;

      (d)   the defendant has a place of business or of employment if the defendant is served

 

therein;

      (e)   the estate of a deceased person is being probated if such deceased person was jointly

liable with the defendant and a demand to enforce such liability has been duly exhibited in the

probate proceedings of such decedent's estate; or

      (f)   there is located tangible personal property which is the subject of an action for the

possession thereof if immediate possession is sought in accordance with K.S.A. 61-3701, and

amendments thereto, at the time of the filing of the action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act - Federal Trade Commission

 

§ 811.  Legal actions by debt collectors   [15 USC 1692i]

 

(a) Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall –

 

(1) in the case of an action to enforce an interest in real property securing the consumer's

 

obligation, bring such action only in a judicial district or similar legal entity in which such real

 

property is located; or

 

(2) in the case of an action not described in paragraph (1), bring such action only in the judicial

 

district or similar legal entity --

 

(A) in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon; or

 

(B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.

 

(B) Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt

 

collectors.

 

     Defendant hesitates to repeat to this Honorable court everything already stated in Defendants

 

Motion to Dismiss, filed previously, thereby asking the Court to read everything twice.

 

Therefore, the Defendant respectfully directs the Courts attention to her Motion to Dismiss. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. CONCLUSION

     In that the Defendant has proven multiple genuine issue of material fact, including

defendant’s right to invoke Res Judicata, the Defendant respectfully submits to the Court that its

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement must be sustained.

     WHEREFORE, defendant, xxxxxx, prays that her Motion for Dismissal be

granted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end I would remove the part about hesitating to repeat the things in the MTD and asking the court to read twice.

We can always come up with ways to make them better etc. but at some point you just need to get it filed. I think you are at that point and it's going to have to be good to go.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@pampamk

 

The doctrine of res judicata

 

prevents the splitting of a single cause of action or claim into two or more suits; it requires that

 

all the grounds or theories upon which a cause of action or claim is founded be asserted in one

 


 

 

action or they will be barred in any subsequent action. Parsons Mobile Products, Inc. v.

 

Remmert, 216 Kan. 138, 140, 531 P.2d 435 (1975).

 

 

That case law doesn't apply.  They're not splitting the cause of action.  An example of splitting the cause of action would be if they sued you for breach of contract, then in a separate suit for the same debt sued you for an account stated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@pampamk

 

 

That case law doesn't apply.  They're not splitting the cause of action.  An example of splitting the cause of action would be if they sued you for breach of contract, then in a separate suit for the same debt sued you for an account stated. 

I just wanted to put the whole quote in... I guess I could have cut that part out.... didn't even think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm, did I say something wrong? I feel abandoned...   ::violin:: So, question, what should I expect to transpire at the hearing? I mean, will it just be the judge gives his ruling, or will it be a time to present facts, or what? Here is an interesting little sidebar. My dh works in the town where the court is, I do not, I work opposite direction by about 45 miles, so I asked him to file my stuff for me. Well, of course he had it to file on Tuesday, and because of the snow I'm assuming, when he got to the court house the clerks office was closed up tight... fast forward... today he was able to file it. I had given him two complete copies of everything, he said the clerk said she only needed one, but I had the order to dismiss and order to strike on the top. He said  she took both copies of those. She asked him to wait, she was going to get the judge to sign them???? She came back and said he had already left, she will get a judge to sign them tomorrow???  What does that mean??? Any thoughts???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think  anyone here would abandon you. I thought the question (about outcome of your case) was directed to BV80. It wasn't clear if pertained to the outcome of your case in it's entirety or about the outcome at hand (MSJ opposition / MSD), it is the type of question people have to be careful with to an extent.

 

If a post gets missed (it happens) you can  post "bump" in  the next post to bring it up to the top again.

 

My guess would be that the judge will deny their MSJ and deny your MSD and the case will head toward a trial. Although it might be encouraging that there was an implication that a judge was going to sign something you filed (not sure what you motioned to strike) and obviously it would have been better if your friend would have waited. I find it hard to believe that the clerk would know that a judge would sign that, but who knows, I guess you will have to wait and see (keep an eye on the court website, maybe something will show up).

 

At the hearing either side may get a little time to argue a bit, but for the most part the judge will probably already have made up his/her mind.

 

Not much help, I know, but just didn't want you to feel abandoned.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@pampamk

 

There's really no way to predict what's going to happen.   It's going to depend on the judge's interpretation of the law on your MTD.   If he believes there are issues that still need to be resolved, then like Anon Amos said, the MSJ will be denied.

 

Unless the issues are cut and dried, you can't predict a judge's ruling.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have asked in the first place. I was putting people on the spot, and that wasn't fair of me. Of course, everyone on here saw right through me and knew I was just wanting to see I've got it in the bag... I just keep telling myself it's up to the judge, and I hate to admit it, but I've never heard many people speak highly of judges... when it comes to what one would think as common sense. I am just glad a light bulb finally came on regarding that other petition filed against me. I'm thinking the dc is banking I wouldn't know about it.  As far as the clerk getting the judges signature, I don't know what she was thinking either... The very top was the MTD, hey if she can get the judge to sign, I'll take it! My dh would have waited, but the judge was not there anymore and would not be back in until today... :(     Thanks again to everyone for all of the help thus far... I'll let you know what happens. If it does continue, I'll most likely hire an attorney. I'm just not sure I can do it, plus I already have a job...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Friends! Well today was the day... Defendant's MTD ~ denied, Plaintiff's MSJ ~ DENIED! Judge had denied my MTD and the MSJ, and of course talking to the Plaintiff's attorney, because you know Pro Se litigants do no matter, was questioning if we wanted to argue our case today or set a trial date. The plaintiffs attorney started saying we can just go ahead, when I stated Defendant requests a trial your honor. So a date was set... Now I am really going to be bugging all of you... I am going to need all the help/advice I can get!!! Are you ready???

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@shellieh98  The thought to go ahead today crossed my mind, but I knew I needed more time to prepare.... plus I wanted to run it by an attorney, which I did... HA! He told me for $500 he would offer a settlement for $500 to them, and if they didn't accept which would be a very real possibility, and he had to actually show at the trial, it would be more $$$. I was thinking to myself, how much of a hayseed does he really think I am... Give him $500 to set it up so I could pay another $500...  He then said I had some really good defenses... again, I'm thinking so why would I want to settle... He also told me I did a really good job beating MSJ... what a surprise, a pos hayseed beat a MSJ!!! I guess all attorneys and judges think people who have hit hard times and were unable to pay their bills are scum... I guess I'll be doing this myself!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My first question ~ would someone please explain this to me. I want to see if I am understanding it correctly.

 

 FRCP 41(B).  It provides that an involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute, or for failure to comply with the Rules or any order of the court, shall operate as an "adjudication upon the merits," although the substantive issues of the case are never reached.  This exception does not apply in the case of a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in other words if they dont follow the rules and you call them on it, the court can sanction them by ruling in your favor even though they maybe could have won if they had followed the rules.  Vice versa, if they find you didnt follow the rules you could lose even though it had nothing to do with weather or not you owed them the money.. Also if they just sit there and dont work on the case, after so long the court will dismiss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I think I understand is this...  dismissal for lack of prosecution ~ since it is a adjudication on the merits it means it is as if we did have a trial and the judge has made his final ruling???  Is this correct?? See what I'm getting at.. they voluntarily dismissed in one county, filed in another county, it was dismissed due to lack of prosecution. Reinstated the first action in the first county, the action action we are on now..  So if I think I understand this correctly, then my res judicata would hold water???

 

Just want to make a note, if I question an answer/advice from someone, it is not that I'm questioning you, I am looking at it from every angle, making sure I have a good understanding... I don't want anyone thinking I am trying to fight with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... I don't want anyone thinking I am trying to fight with them.

You never need to be concerned about that, no one will ever get that thought. I would be in a habit of questioning things and seeing how they mesh with your rules.

 

It's easy to spot a genuine legal argument as apposed to someone who is just grinding their axe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first question ~ would someone please explain this to me. I want to see if I am understanding it correctly.

 

 FRCP 41( B).  It provides that an involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute, or for failure to comply with the Rules or any order of the court, shall operate as an "adjudication upon the merits," although the substantive issues of the case are never reached.  This exception does not apply in the case of a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue.

This is a Federal rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos  Kansas Statute 60-241 is almost exactly the same...    (B)   Involuntary dismissal; effect thereof. (1) For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these sections or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this paragraph and any dismissal not provided for in this section, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under K.S.A. 60-219 and amendments thereto, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

 

However, Kansas add this:  (2)   The judge may on the judge's own motion cause a case to be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, but only after directing the clerk to notify counsel of record not less than 10 days in advance of such intended dismissal, that an order of dismissal will be entered unless cause be shown for not doing so.

 

I am not sure if the court sent notice, I am assuming it was sent. I will call Monday and ask for copies of everything in the file.. From the cases I have been reading, the appellate courts have said whether a notice was sent or not doesn't really matter because it is ultimately the plaintiffs responsibility to be aware of it's own actions...    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the state rules really do (for the most part) mirror the federal rules, nationwide our rules are much closer than many people realize.

 

Did they ever receive an "involuntary" dismissal? I was thinking they dismissed on their own. (I need to read the thread again),

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think you have some strong case law about the 4 month rule, bring it up over and over.  If they are allowed to continue with your case, what is to stop every jdb from filing suit in time for the SOL, dismissing, then getting it reinstated when they are good and ready to pursue the case, after the sol has lapsed.  I would focus my efforts on that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@shellieh98 I totally agree with you. I definitely will be using that argument, but I was thinking how nice it would be to have more than one... Just as the issues with their BOS, I would like to have a strong argument against it as well. My other thing is figuring out just how many violations they have made so when I talk to an attorney about filing suit against them, I can bring them up and hope he/she agrees and adds more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may have been a bad ruling by not allowing your dismissal (since they already dismissed it) but I don't know how you could appeal that while the case is still in litigation. 

 

If you could bring a lawsuit against them as you mentioned, or possibly add a counterclaim (if your rules allow) you could definitely gain leverage over them.

 

I am sure you can poke holes in the BOS and any other evidence if you learn the rules of evidence for your state.

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.