Recommended Posts

On 8/3/2016 at 9:31 AM, sadinca said:

i would send a second M&C letter, whether to file for a Motion to exclude evidence, would be a judgement call from you. CIC members have been getting mixed results from Motions to exclude evidence. some JDBs will rather avoid the work dropping the case as soon as they encounter some resistance, others will fight you tooth and nail all the way to trial even for a low amount. 

Ha ha, I know exactly what you're talking about...we have our first grandson about to hit three, and damn but they have a lot of energy.  So adorable, though...

I'm going to look into writing a second request to Meet and Confer.  When I got the letter, it really threw me into despair; I was hoping that they wouldn't respond at all.  I have to say this about Portfolio Recovery Associates:  they are a different animal.

They definitely have class--what I mean is that they aren't pulling any dirty tricks, they're doing everything (diplomatically) to make sure that the court is respected.  There isn't a single situation where they haven't responded in a timely manner (maybe a day or two late), even if their rebuttal was nonsense.  This makes them a more difficult animal than the others.

I don't know how I should respond to a letter quoting decisions from 1887, besides to tell them that slavery has been abolished.

I am humbled by your contributions, as by those of everyone else that has stepped in to offer advice (in this thread and others).  I don't know what to say, other than to say that it is wrong to assume that lawyers (and paralegals) love the law more than they love their fellow man.

I wish all of you knew our story, because almost all of our financial difficulty is borne out of my wife's compassion for family.  It doesn't hold water in a court of law, but it is reasonable to anyone who has been the child of someone whose living was made recycling bottles out of a dump.

Sorry, hammered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might consider letting the BOP go and move on to a simple set of discovery. There's a demand for production of documents in ASTMedic's thread.

BTW, these are just typical bottom feeders, no different than the rest. They have been beaten here many times.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I just read through your thread real quick, I'm currently facing off with H&H/PRA for the second time. 

Both cases I got the fee waiver. The first time I just stated that my bills were higher than my income and it went to a hearing. At the hearing the judge asked why my bills were high and I said I was helping my parents as they were selling their house. The second time I had a medi-cal card so that automatically qualified me. I'm not sure if you went to a hearing or not but you should've been able to explain your situation to a judge. I don't know if it's too late or if your court even allows a fee waiver hearing, however hope this info can help.

Also, maybe I missed it while reading over, but why was the BOP response incomplete? From what I've read on here and in my experience the BOP doesn't yield much. 

It's stressful when you have to deal with the uncertainty of this situation and the constant intake of new info with a busy life, but I'm 100% sure that those helping you on this thread will guide you well. You're in good hands. H&H are unlikely to dismiss until the week of trial when you're unable to serve their fake and unqualified witness. Hang in there, it may be awhile. Best of luck!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John4600 said:

Hey I just read through your thread real quick, I'm currently facing off with H&H/PRA for the second time. 

Both cases I got the fee waiver. The first time I just stated that my bills were higher than my income and it went to a hearing. At the hearing the judge asked why my bills were high and I said I was helping my parents as they were selling their house. The second time I had a medi-cal card so that automatically qualified me. I'm not sure if you went to a hearing or not but you should've been able to explain your situation to a judge. I don't know if it's too late or if your court even allows a fee waiver hearing, however hope this info can help.

Also, maybe I missed it while reading over, but why was the BOP response incomplete? From what I've read on here and in my experience the BOP doesn't yield much. 

It's stressful when you have to deal with the uncertainty of this situation and the constant intake of new info with a busy life, but I'm 100% sure that those helping you on this thread will guide you well. You're in good hands. H&H are unlikely to dismiss until the week of trial when you're unable to serve their fake and unqualified witness. Hang in there, it may be awhile. Best of luck!

Thanks for your input--and yeah, I agree that we are in good hands :)

We aren't on any type of government aid, so we did not automatically qualify.  It's more of a personal decision than a matter of whether or not we have attempted to get qualified.  I have always maintained that I would get a job before it got to that point, and it has.  I don't intend that as a slight to anyone that is on government assistance--it's just the way that I was raised, and the fact that I know that I am capable.

So far as the BoP is concerned, I guess I should probably replace "incomplete" with "insufficient to show cause to bring about a lawsuit in the first place."  They only sent us copies of what they submitted as evidence in the original complaint, although parts that were originally blacked-out were received uncensored in the BoP response.  Two statements per case, that's it.

Regarding the fee waiver:  when we totaled our bills, we showed that our income right around what our bills were, and went to a hearing to request that we be allowed to make payments rather than have to pay the entire fees outright.  That was denied on the basis that we had two cases, and the judge did not want there to be confusion--if we did not pay one month, which case would be dismissed?

Regardless, it's really more than that.  Our bills are much higher because my wife supports her sister (and the three adults in her family) as well.  Put it this way:  they told us that curtain fabric would keep cold air in the house despite the window being wide open.  When my wife was called on to testify, I think that she was flustered because she was not expecting it.  I'm pretty sure that the judge saw her nervousness as a sign that she was being dishonest about our bills, but she was not.  If anything, she understated them.

My wife took out a loan so that she could pay the fees, and it's done with.  But it doesn't matter--so far as I am concerned, it's a sign that I have to get back to work anyway.  I believe that our children are on the right track now so far as their education is concerned, and the money that I (hopefully) bring in will offset the cost of having to pay someone to transport them, feed all of us with fast food more often, fix everything that breaks, and hopefully pay someone to help out the rest of our family when they need it.  I am hoping that the work experience will offset the negative effect of going to school half-time rather than full.  Time will tell, but we remain hopeful.

 

Edited by Inundated
edited for details
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I have a question:

My wife has a trial setting conference coming up.  After reading over ASTMedic's thread, we saw that we were required to submit a CMC Statement prior to the meeting.  When we looked it up, we found out that there are some local rules that are different, due to budget cuts.  Basically, as of July 1, 2016, the rules state that in cases that were filed after January 1, 2016 (ours was), parties may file an "at issue memorandum," but it has to be served at least 15 days prior to the trial setting conference (see Rule 411.1 in the attachment).

If we filed a general denial, doesn't that essentially mean that everything is at issue?  Do we have to explicitly state which things we have contention with?

We're past the 15 day mark, so it's too late for us to file one.  Please tell us that I didn't royally screw this up...

rulesofcourt.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't screw up in any way. During my wife's case, Midland filed an at issue memorandum after discovery. In not sure what it is precisely, but I think plaintiff file then after they can't get anything from defender that could be used on an man. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, sadinca said:

You haven't screw up in any way. During my wife's case, Midland filed an at issue memorandum after discovery. In not sure what it is precisely, but I think plaintiff file then after they can't get anything from defender that could be used on an man. 

Thank you sadinca.  I was worried because the fill-able .pdf looked like it was written in some dead language of Atlantis.  I'm not sure if it was even right-side up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2016 at 8:58 AM, adjusterintrouble said:
 

Inundated, anything new on your case?

Actually, yeah :)

I'd earlier mentioned another case that had been brought against us--the JDB had it dismissed (without prejudice).  They really hadn't put forth much effort in that one, and due the knowledge we've gained by defending the others (from these forums), we made it Hell from the start.

The other two cases are coming up soon--less than 20 days now.  We've received a Declaration of Plaintiff in lieu of personal testimony (CCP 98) for one of the two cases.  We have received no statement of witnesses/evidence in the other case.  We sent out a request for a list of witnesses and/or evidence pursuant to CCP 96 for both cases, because in the one case where we had received a statement of witnesses/evidence we wanted to be sure that their response was accurate, complete, and bound by law (call me paranoid, but I felt it better to get a response to a demand than an unprompted declaration).  The response to the CCP 96 was late in coming (over 25 days), but was contained exactly the same information contained in the original CCP 98 statement.

We're currently waiting  for the news on our attempt to subpoena the alleged "witness" at the address given in the CCP 98 on the one case.  We will be filing a Motion in Limine to exclude said "evidence" if we find that she is not available at said address.  Judging from some information that I've found via Google (and many posts in these forums), the odds are against the person being there.

We are also considering filing motions to exclude any evidence not provided with the original demands for a Bill of Particulars (both cases).  Their response consisted of the same two alleged billing statements provided in the original complaint, and nothing more.  After one (or two) attempts to meet-and-confer, they sent us a letter that basically stated that the courts rarely excluded evidence based on CCP 454 due to the fact that the ten day limit was a guideline, not a hard-and-fast limit.  I would like to include their response as evidence in our filing that we did attempt to communicate, and were rebuffed.

We've already sent out our discovery documents--request for admissions, demand for production of documents, and specially prepared interrogatories for each case (even though we know it probably wasn't necessary after their deficient response to our BoP requestion, we felt it best to keep the heat on).  We sent out the demand for production of documents earlier for both, as those were simpler to complete.  We received their responses to those exactly 37 days from when originally sent, 34 days from when they'd received them (counting the day that they were sent).  The RFA's and Interrogatories were sent out a little over seven weeks before the trial date--their responses to the RFA's objected to everything (saying that they were in excess of what was allowed under CCP 94), and the response to the Interrogatories objected due to them being "overly burdensome and overbroad" according to CCP 2024.020(a), as well as not having provided 30 days prior to the closure of discovery (which apparently was 30 days prior to the trial date).  So either they're lying or we missed our deadline by a few days.  We received that response 37 days after we'd sent out the requests, 35 days after they'd received them (again, counting the day that they were sent).

They responded to our demand for production of documents in one case (the one which they'd also provided a CCP 98 statement), and not the other.  We'll make a full accounting soon, but a cursory glance looks intimidating.

So far as we see it, the outcome really depends on a couple of things:  whether or not they provide a witness, and whether or not the judge will allow for the exclusion of evidence based on their non-compliance with our demands for Bills of Particulars.

We've been quietly combing through the forums, but have been distracted by finals and the other things that come with being parents (and grandparents).  That, and my new job :)

We hope to have our trial brief completed and submitted asap.  My wife found a good example, which shares many of our case's characteristics.  We'll likely be updating quite a bit as the date draws near, and monitoring any replies.

Thanks for all of the help--we're 1/1 so far thanks to the help we've received,with two more coming soon :)

 

edit to summarize:

Case "Y": 

Received CCP 98, waiting on subpoena results  Response to CCP 96 mirrored previously sent CCP 98 statement, but response was late.  Deficient response to BoP.  Received responses to RFA, Interrogatories, Doc Production.

 

Case "X":

No CCP 98 given, no response to CCP 96.  Deficient response to BoP.  No response to Doc Production demand. Received responses to RFA, Interrogatories in the form of objections.

Edited by Inundated
changed letters denoting cases, so they would conform to the original post.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you'll get an exclusion of evidence based on how they (failed to) respond to the BOP. I believe you would have needed to make some Motions to Compel during discovery for that (not easy to do). Your best way to attack their evidence will be objections based on untimely CCP 96 responses and/or unsuccessful attempts to serve the CCP 98 witness.

Case Y - What dates are you using to calculate that they were late responding to your CCP 96 request? The clock starts on the day that you served the request (placed it in the mail); 25 days (20 by statute plus 5 for mailing the request) for them to place their response in the mail, meaning a timely response could take 25+ days to arrive in your mailbox.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Inundated said:

 

edit to summarize:

Case "Y": 

Received CCP 98, waiting on subpoena results  Response to CCP 96 mirrored previously sent CCP 98 statement, but response was late.  Deficient response to BoP.  Received responses to RFA, Interrogatories, Doc Production.

I don't think I would make a big deal about the second CCP 98 being late if the "voluntary" one was the same.  Your key to this one is to get the declaration excluded because the witness can't be served (Target Bank, etc.)

Case "X":

No CCP 98 given, no response to CCP 96.  Deficient response to BoP.  No response to Doc Production demand. Received responses to RFA, Interrogatories in the form of objections.

I would send a letter (after your are sure the CCP 98 is late).  Tell them that you served a CCP 96 on ____, that a response was due on or before _____ and no response was served.  Then tell them that you will move to exclude any witness offered by plaintiff on that basis.  Then, you can attach the letter to a declaration filed in support of a motion to exclude witnesses at trial.  Either Plaintiff serves a late designation (which is specifically precluded by the statute) or you can say that you notified them of the error and they did nothing.  Exemplars of the letter and the motion are on the board.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, RyanEX said:

I don't think you'll get an exclusion of evidence based on how they (failed to) respond to the BOP. I believe you would have needed to make some Motions to Compel during discovery for that (not easy to do). Your best way to attack their evidence will be objections based on untimely CCP 96 responses and/or unsuccessful attempts to serve the CCP 98 witness.

Case Y - What dates are you using to calculate that they were late responding to your CCP 96 request? The clock starts on the day that you served the request (placed it in the mail); 25 days (20 by statute plus 5 for mailing the request) for them to place their response in the mail, meaning a timely response could take 25+ days to arrive in your mailbox.

I believe that it took a little over a month to get a response to our CCP 96 request for Case Y, but I'm not sure if it precludes the fact that they'd already sent the CCP 98 before we'd even asked for it.  I imagine that it does, but more or less we just sent it because I felt it better to get it by invoking CCP 96.  Because they had sent it to us unprompted, I was suspicious that they might have been doing it to preclude us from demanding the information in full via CCP 96.

CALawyer:  (The quoting mechanism is acting odd)

for Case Y:

 We're waiting on the results of those attempts, and have been studying Target Bank -v- Rocha for mention in our trial brief.  Our process server is very reputable in our area, and seems to be familiar with what is being requested (more than we are, in any case).  There are numerous accounts of failed attempts to subpoena directly at the declarant's listed location (as found by google).  One thing of note:  the documents provided via our demand for Production of Documents are nearly the same as those being entered via CCP 98...so we have both bodies of evidence to contend with.  I may be mistaken, but if the CCP 98 is excluded, does this also exclude all documents provided via our demand for Doc Production if they overlap?

for Case X:

I will craft the letter tonight on your advice--thank you!  At this point, they are beyond late--in fact, they're acting as they did with the last case, which they dismissed.  There was no response to our demand for Doc Production, either...so essentially, they've provided no "evidence" beyond the couple of statements submitted with the original complaint.  I'm not sure what the motivation is--perhaps they simply don't have them, or perhaps they'd like to dismiss this smaller case without prejudice so they can bring it up if Case Y fails.  Interestingly, both cases are to be tried on the same day...so you would think that, if they had the evidence, they would move forward with both as it would be a greater return on resources invested.

 

Regardless, we're in "wait and see" mode.  You'll know what I know as I find out more :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so we were just informed by our process server that the address associated with the declarant was a vacated building/business office space.  The process server asked a neighboring business what had been there prior, and it turns out that it used to be a process server business that had either moved or gone out of business :)

Should we ask our process server for an affidavit of due diligence?  Or is there something else that we should ask for?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

request an affidavit or due diligence from the process server and prepare your Objections to CCP 98. 

 

from another threat:

 

  • Location: CA

Posted Today, 10:03 AM

here is also RyanEx objection

 

https://drive.google...W83SG5WbGM/view

 

and as calawyer has recently suggested in another post:

 

Ryan's objection is a great template.  Very clear and short.  However, since that time, another case has been decided that agrees with Target Bank.  It is called CACH v. Rodgers.  If you look at post 32 of the following thread, I suggest some language that can be included in the objection to incorporate that case:  http://www.creditinf...-31-days/page-2

 

 

Posted 19 October 2014 - 10:02 PM

CACH v. Rodgers now has an official cite.  It is CACH. LLC v. Rodgers (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1.

 

Try this in your brief instead:

 

      This is precisely the conclusion reached by the Court in Target Nat. Bank v. Rocha (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1.   There, Target National Bank (“Target”) sued Ms. Rocha for an alleged credit card debt exceeding $7,000.   Shortly before trial, Target served a declaration in lieu of live testimony at Trial executed by a Tiffany Lewis of Minneapolis, Minnesota.   Because she resided out of state, Ms. Lewis gave the address of her counsel as a place where she could be served.

     The Court held that Target failed to comply with CCP Section 98 and it was an abuse of discretion to introduce the declaration at trial.   Id. at p.7.   The Court reviewed the history of CCP Section 98 and noted the due process implications of presenting evidence by declaration at trial.   The Court concluded: “…….a party may only introduce a witness’s declaration if the opposing party had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at deposition or could require the witness to be subject to cross-examination at trial.”

     The Court further found that giving an attorney’s address or other location where the witness does not actually reside, fails to comply with CCP Section 98. Id. at 7.   As the Court noted: “For all of the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Division concludes that the declaration offered by Target did not comply with Section 98 as Lewis was not available for service of process within 150 miles of the courthouse.   Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the declaration as evidence.   As that was the only evidence offered at trial, the judgment in favor of Target cannot stand.”

 

 

And follow that with:

 

The Court reached the same conclusion in the very recent case CACH v. Rodgers (2014), 229 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, 2014.  There, CACH, a debt purchaser, sought to introduce a declaration executed by “Magic West”.  The declaration was executed in Denver, Colorado.  Although the witness was not present in California, he purported to authorize plaintiff’s counsel to accept service on his behalf.  Defendant tried to serve the witness at that location to no avail.  The court nonetheless admitted the declaration over defendant’s objection.  Id. at 4.

 

The Appellate Division reversed.  The Court agreed with Target Bank, supra and held that CACH did not make Magic West available for service under CCP 98:  “We agree with the holding of Target v. Rocha, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 156 and find its logic persuasive. Magic West was not available for service within 150 miles and was not at the location for a reasonable period of time during the 20 days immediately prior to the trial as required by statute.”   229 Cal. App. 4th Supp. at 6.  “If the legislature had intended to allow long distance service without complying with section 1987, or making a third or hybrid type of service permissible, they certainly know how to say so.”  Id

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Inundated said:

Okay, so we were just informed by our process server that the address associated with the declarant was a vacated building/business office space.  The process server asked a neighboring business what had been there prior, and it turns out that it used to be a process server business that had either moved or gone out of business :)

Should we ask our process server for an affidavit of due diligence?  Or is there something else that we should ask for?

Check how many people and different areas where they swore under oath and or to punishment of perjury that this person would be here etc. You may be able to use this against them as well.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding case "Y":

So let me define two addresses:

  1. Address "A" is about 15 miles from the courthouse, and represents the abandoned unit where we attempted to have a subpoena served (given as the address of the declarant).
  2. Address "B" is an address about 100 miles from the court house, and was given in our third (dismissed) case as housing a Portfolio Recovery Associates branch.

Here's where things get kind of odd:  the original document they'd sent us (entitled "Declaration of Plaintiff in lieu of personal testimony at trial CCP 98 ") had the declarant's address listed at address "A."  This document states "pursuant to CCP 98, this affiant is available for service of process at [address "A"] for a reasonable period of time, during the 20 days immediately prior to trial."  Their response to our CCP 96 request was titled "Plaintiff's statement of witness and evidence."  The declarant in the first document was also listed as a witness in the second document:  under the section titled "Witnesses along with exhibits to be admitted,"her address is given as address "B," along with three other people (my wife is also listed).  The document goes on to state that "these witnesses may be contacted through the undersigned legal counsel at [some address about 500 miles away]."

Given that the two documents list the same person as having two different addresses, and given that the address "A" was vacant...have they just given us evidence of perjury on behalf of the declarant?  Or perhaps the one that verified the "Plaintiff's statement of witness and evidence?"  Perhaps I might consider making a document request from the city containing address "A" to try and discern when that unit was vacated?

As a side note, the declarant in the CCP 98 document (the first one they'd sent) was the same person that signed the verification on their response to our demand for production of documents (although there is no mention of her address).

(thanks to Anon Amos for drawing my attention to these discrepancies--especially if they mean something)

Regarding case "X":

It has been 28 full days since they've received our CCP 96.  We have the certified mail return receipts to prove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, working on the MIL for Case "Y":  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7PF8rzk-rDFY1F3QjZENE1rS0k/view?usp=sharing

It uses RyanEx's template, with updates as suggested by sadinca.  I don't know quite how to word it, but the major changes were made on page 3, under "Current Address."  Basically, rather than claim that the address given was too far from the court, or that there were too many addresses given, I had to state that the address was vacant.

We're waiting on our affidavit of due diligence--I'm not sure what information that it will have, but hopefully it mentions what we were told.  I was planning on submitting the relevant portions of the documents that they've provided us, along with the affidavit, as evidence:  one of the documents contradicts the other, and both are signed.  I don't know if lying on a statement of witnesses and evidence is considered perjury (there's no statement swearing that it's true before the signature), but it is obvious that the address given in the CCP 98 was not in compliance, to say the very least.

If one were to find that the declarant committed perjury, I'm assuming that it would invalidate the evidence she verified in their response to our request for production of documents?

Should we send off a letter for this one as well?

 

I'll be back on tomorrow afternoon.  My wife will probably be monitoring for answers earlier on :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:  we received a notice of dismissal on Case "X," though the docket hasn't been updated yet.  We intend to continue on as if it hadn't been received until we see that it has actually been dismissed.  If it actually is dismissed, we'll be 2/2 this far with your help :)  The letter is going out today.

We're also sending out a letter for Case "Y," letting them know that we will be filing to suppress based upon the failed subpoena due to false address given.   Here is the draft (names, dates, addresses largely redacted):  https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7PF8rzk-rDFczB5WXgyZHFQRDA

Does anybody have any advice?  We'll be sending the letter out tomorrow, and we'll be submitting the trial briefs as well.  MIL's will be submitted first chance next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good job and keep the pressure up. 

Calawyer recommends instead of calling them MIL's we call them Defendants Objection to Declaration in Lieu of...., Defendants Objection to Credit Card Statements... Defendants Objections to Bill of Sale... etc etc. 

and dont forget your Declaration of Defendant in Support of....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sadinca said:
 

good job and keep the pressure up. 

Calawyer recommends instead of calling them MIL's we call them Defendants Objection to Declaration in Lieu of...., Defendants Objection to Credit Card Statements... Defendants Objections to Bill of Sale... etc etc. 

and dont forget your Declaration of Defendant in Support of....

Okay, will do :)

Because all of that "evidence" is contained in their CCP 98 and response to our Demand for Production of Documents (aside from two alleged statements), and because the same person was the declarant for both of those bodies of "evidence," I was wondering if both could be thrown out based on the fact that the declarant lied about their address in the CCP 98?  To me, it's not simply a matter of failing to provide an address within 150 miles of the courthouse, or even providing an address that listed "care of" such-and-such business," because that address was totally vacant--in fact, the process server has delivered (to the court house) a sworn declaration stating that the residents in the neighboring unit had told him/her that it had been vacant for over a month.  So unless this declarant has been hanging out in this vacant unit during working hours...

          But wait!  The declarant was listed as a witness with an address about 100 miles away, along with three other witnesses.  Wait!  The address given in the CCP 98 is a commercial unit, and so is the second address...so does she work at both places simultaneously?  Because how can this person be available at both places at the same time for the 20 days prior?

          How can someone designate an empty unity take "care of" a subpoena to be delivered to someone?  Why not say "c/o trash can in front of court house."  It shows a total disregard for the law.

          What I want to know is, just how much trouble can this person get in if they are found to have committed perjury?  Could a lawyer be disbarred in California for such a thing?  Can I subpoena the owner of the address listed in the CCP 98 for information on when that business vacated the unit?  We may just strike a blow to these people that goes beyond winning a single case...perhaps I should limit our letter to mention of the failed subpoena, without highlighting the other (incriminating) discrepancies...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little update, I found Skates97's thread "Sued by CACH," along with the redacted documents, and realized that almost everything that occurred in his/her case was almost exactly the same as ours--down to the subpoena served to a vacant address.  Even the name of the business at said to be at the vacant address is the same (!)

What was shaping-up to be a long night of writing is turning into a good night's rest ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Inundated said:

A little update, I found Skates97's thread "Sued by CACH," along with the redacted documents, and realized that almost everything that occurred in his/her case was almost exactly the same as ours--down to the subpoena served to a vacant address.  Even the name of the business at said to be at the vacant address is the same (!)

What was shaping-up to be a long night of writing is turning into a good night's rest ;)

Did we do an objection to the declaration in Skates97's thread?  I remember that one because the address was vacant.  If there is no objection posted, let me know.  I might have saved it somewhere.

 

I don't think you should make a big deal about "perjury" in the objection.  But I do think that we should say that they have used the same address in the past and they know it is a vacant address.  That is not being candid with the parties and the court; an obligation imposed upon all lawyers.

 

If the witness shows up at trial, however, you should ask whether the witness told the truth in the declaration that was signed under penalty of perjury.  When the witness says "yes", you whack them hard with all of the false statements.  That would be so much fun.  Just think:  Have you ever been to [vacant address]?  When was the last time?

  • Like 3
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.