I often watch your and John Skiba's video's and must say you are both great. It seems that in both there is a theme in that the the Debt buyer typically does not have the evidence to prove their case. It seems confusing that as many times as you face the same companies/attorneys they'd get a clue. Do you think they are just playing the percentages (i.e. 96% are won by default) and the losses are just a 'drop in the bucket"....no big deal to them?
Yes the number of people we represent is a drop in the bucket. As just one example, Midland Credit Management filed over 1000 lawsuits in Alabama last month (September 2020). So if 10 MCM defendants hire me a month, that's only 1%. The numbers of cases they are filing is mind boggling. Thanks for your good comment! John
Botham brother is a disgrace and shouldn't be allowed to come to any environment where oxygen is present. These jurors are so stupid talking about Jean would forgive her and not want her in jail for 28 years. WTH!!! He's rottening in a grave instead of sitting on his couch eating ice cream. His brother thought he was going to get empathy and get some money. Now you didn't get nothing!!! In 5 years she's going to be out with her boyfriend working out
John - Great topic. I have always thought that courts should give more weight to Rule 106. I argue it in almost every debt buyer case and many judges here in Arizona disregard it. It is crazy to me that they would be permitted to admit only the exhibits to a document and not the exhibits themselves. Great video!
Thanks John -- sorry you have judges not following this foundational rule. Keep fighting the good fight my friend and eventually (hopefully) the judges will come around!
"Permitted to admit only the exhibits to a document and not the exhibits themselves" What does it mean? You can mention a document as an exhibit but can't attach the exhibited document?
I think what John was saying is that judges are letting in just an exhibit or two of the Purchase Agreement without requiring the actual Purchase Agreement to be admitted.
@@johngwatts lvnv. They only had the bills of sale and some graphic that didn’t match the bill of sale. I asked for the rest of the documents and their lawyer couldn’t provide them so the judge ruled in my favor
That's brilliant! Very good. Do you mind emailing me the court docs I would like to see what happened. The complaint and the judge's order if you have those. john@wattsherring.com.
Keep’em coming John. I love your videos on Debt collection lawsuits and how the debt collector will try to squeeze their way out of not being held accountable. I am a paralegal here in NC and I learn a lot from you. Thanks
How about a video on " 3 different collection agencys trying collect the same account over the past 24 months. Now, 1 is suing. I answered the suit, no response for 3 months. Thanks.
Mark here is a video that hopefully answers your question -- if I missed the main point let me know thanks! ruclips.net/video/chqboxX8Zfw/видео.html John Watts
I quoted this rule to the plantiff's lawyer and she said that this federal rule of evidence doesn't apply in the rules of evidence. Our trail is in district court and governor by state and civil procedure rules of evidence. Help!
Yes if you are in state court you have to look up your state rules. This video covers Rule 106 of the Alabama Rules of Evidence. Most states will have something similar so just search "[your state] rules of evidence" So here are the Texas rules of evidence -- www.txcourts.gov/media/921665/tx-rules-of-evidence.pdf Georgia -- here is rule 106 -- law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-24/chapter-1/article-2/section-24-1-106 I don't practice in state court in other states so I don't know if numbering system is always the same but most should be listed as rule 106 or search for completeness doctrine. Best wishes! John
John, are you suggesting the use of Rule 106 as a sword (versus a shield)? My understanding was that Rule 106 (same in Texas) lets the adverse party put the materials into completeness, if they have them, which sounds highly defensive. But Rule 107 (Texas) lets the adverse party ask about any missing materials as well as supplementing the record with those missing materials.
It all depends on how you view it. If Midland Credit puts in a bill of sale, then I demand that they put in the full purchase agreement. They won't or can't. They either will not have it and so cannot put it in. Or they have it but refuse to let the judge see it. The judge is then prompted to disregard their bill of sale as it is not a complete document. So maybe it is a shield and a sword. :) Traditionally this is used when a party puts in one part of a document and leaves out the part that helps you so you demand that it be put in. I'm using it slightly different to show why the original (PART) of a document should be disregarded as it is unreliable divorced from the full document. Let me know if that makes sense. :) Thanks John PS In Alabama we don't have a rule 107 so I'm not familiar with that one.
@@johngwatts It's called "optional completeness" and it's essentially a souped-up version of Rule 106; I think it's modeled off the FRE. Alabama does not have optional completeness. But it essentially allows the introduction of any other writing to explain the writing offered, while 106 is limited to the full version of the part of the document submitted.
Wouldn’t the debt collector lack standing if they are unwilling or unable to produce the complete purchase agreement as referenced in the bill of sale? Is there a federal rule of evidence or civil procedure for lack of standing?
I believe they do lack standing when they won't offer into evidence an authenticated purchase agreement. Standing (or real party in interest) is part of the requirements to bring a lawsuit. Do note that courts use these terms loosely and even though they are not the same courts often treat these terms as the same. As far as a rule, you can look at Rule 17 of the federal rules of civil procedure: (a) Real Party in Interest. (1) Designation in General. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Full rule is here -- www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_17 Thanks for your good comment! John Watts
Those are all different concepts. Authentication is showing the document is what it says it is (i.e. not a forgery etc). Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of what is asserted. The completeness doctrine simply says if you introduce part of a document, you must introduce the whole document if the other side demands it. Hope that helps and thanks for comment! John
extremely helpful. being sued for a capital one credit card back in 2015. unifunds attorney sent me a motion for summary disposition, and i see 2 "one page" bill of sale between two debt collectors, with the purchase price blotted out. they also sent a so called purchase i made, but the document only includes the last 4 digits of the account number. im thinking that i could also challenge that as well
Hi Jon, I’m being sued by PRA and i have a set trial for January 2022 I recently contacted PRA and asked for proof of ownership of this debt and all they sent me was a letter saying “account number ----- and it’s proceeds were sold assigned and transferred by the seller to PRA on 11/19/2020” I thought they would send over a bill of sale or something of that sort but all I got was this letter with PRA letter head what can I do in this case? Would this be enough to show they own my debt?
To add on to this I spoke to an attorney who says he can help me settle my claim but wouldn’t want to risk going to trial and possibly loosing I just wish I knew what my chances were
I often watch your and John Skiba's video's and must say you are both great. It seems that in both there is a theme in that the the Debt buyer typically does not have the evidence to prove their case. It seems confusing that as many times as you face the same companies/attorneys they'd get a clue. Do you think they are just playing the percentages (i.e. 96% are won by default) and the losses are just a 'drop in the bucket"....no big deal to them?
Yes the number of people we represent is a drop in the bucket.
As just one example, Midland Credit Management filed over 1000 lawsuits in Alabama last month (September 2020).
So if 10 MCM defendants hire me a month, that's only 1%.
The numbers of cases they are filing is mind boggling.
Thanks for your good comment!
John
Botham brother is a disgrace and shouldn't be allowed to come to any environment where oxygen is present. These jurors are so stupid talking about Jean would forgive her and not want her in jail for 28 years. WTH!!! He's rottening in a grave instead of sitting on his couch eating ice cream. His brother thought he was going to get empathy and get some money. Now you didn't get nothing!!! In 5 years she's going to be out with her boyfriend working out
John - Great topic. I have always thought that courts should give more weight to Rule 106. I argue it in almost every debt buyer case and many judges here in Arizona disregard it. It is crazy to me that they would be permitted to admit only the exhibits to a document and not the exhibits themselves. Great video!
Thanks John -- sorry you have judges not following this foundational rule. Keep fighting the good fight my friend and eventually (hopefully) the judges will come around!
"Permitted to admit only the exhibits to a document and not the exhibits themselves"
What does it mean? You can mention a document as an exhibit but can't attach the exhibited document?
I think what John was saying is that judges are letting in just an exhibit or two of the Purchase Agreement without requiring the actual Purchase Agreement to be admitted.
I won my case by using evidence rule 106! I watched this video a couple hours before my hearing... thank you so much
That's fantastic! Who was it against and what happened?
Congrats on winning!
@@johngwatts lvnv. They only had the bills of sale and some graphic that didn’t match the bill of sale. I asked for the rest of the documents and their lawyer couldn’t provide them so the judge ruled in my favor
That's brilliant! Very good. Do you mind emailing me the court docs I would like to see what happened. The complaint and the judge's order if you have those. john@wattsherring.com.
@@johngwatts I’ll email you what I have
Keep’em coming John. I love your videos on Debt collection lawsuits and how the debt collector will try to squeeze their way out of not being held accountable. I am a paralegal here in NC and I learn a lot from you. Thanks
Thanks! That's nice to hear that they are helpful. Have a great day!
John
How about a video on " 3 different collection agencys trying collect the same account over the past 24 months. Now, 1 is suing. I answered the suit, no response for 3 months. Thanks.
Mark here is a video that hopefully answers your question -- if I missed the main point let me know thanks!
ruclips.net/video/chqboxX8Zfw/видео.html
John Watts
So no one showed in court….
You are a blessing, with this eduction, every time I watch you I learn something.
Thank you for watching and your comment!
I quoted this rule to the plantiff's lawyer and she said that this federal rule of evidence doesn't apply in the rules of evidence. Our trail is in district court and governor by state and civil procedure rules of evidence. Help!
Yes if you are in state court you have to look up your state rules. This video covers Rule 106 of the Alabama Rules of Evidence. Most states will have something similar so just search "[your state] rules of evidence"
So here are the Texas rules of evidence -- www.txcourts.gov/media/921665/tx-rules-of-evidence.pdf
Georgia -- here is rule 106 -- law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-24/chapter-1/article-2/section-24-1-106
I don't practice in state court in other states so I don't know if numbering system is always the same but most should be listed as rule 106 or search for completeness doctrine.
Best wishes!
John
Here is a video for you -- hope it helps! ruclips.net/video/ubCBsYfztVs/видео.html
John, are you suggesting the use of Rule 106 as a sword (versus a shield)? My understanding was that Rule 106 (same in Texas) lets the adverse party put the materials into completeness, if they have them, which sounds highly defensive. But Rule 107 (Texas) lets the adverse party ask about any missing materials as well as supplementing the record with those missing materials.
It all depends on how you view it.
If Midland Credit puts in a bill of sale, then I demand that they put in the full purchase agreement. They won't or can't.
They either will not have it and so cannot put it in. Or they have it but refuse to let the judge see it.
The judge is then prompted to disregard their bill of sale as it is not a complete document.
So maybe it is a shield and a sword. :)
Traditionally this is used when a party puts in one part of a document and leaves out the part that helps you so you demand that it be put in.
I'm using it slightly different to show why the original (PART) of a document should be disregarded as it is unreliable divorced from the full document.
Let me know if that makes sense. :)
Thanks
John
PS In Alabama we don't have a rule 107 so I'm not familiar with that one.
@@johngwatts It's called "optional completeness" and it's essentially a souped-up version of Rule 106; I think it's modeled off the FRE. Alabama does not have optional completeness. But it essentially allows the introduction of any other writing to explain the writing offered, while 106 is limited to the full version of the part of the document submitted.
Yes that's correct -- Alabama is just the full document. Very interesting about the TX rule -- I like it. :)
Good day sir,
Awesome video.!
Thanks!!
Wouldn’t the debt collector lack standing if they are unwilling or unable to produce the complete purchase agreement
as referenced in the bill of sale?
Is there a federal rule of evidence or civil procedure for lack of standing?
I believe they do lack standing when they won't offer into evidence an authenticated purchase agreement. Standing (or real party in interest) is part of the requirements to bring a lawsuit. Do note that courts use these terms loosely and even though they are not the same courts often treat these terms as the same.
As far as a rule, you can look at Rule 17 of the federal rules of civil procedure:
(a) Real Party in Interest.
(1) Designation in General. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.
Full rule is here -- www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_17
Thanks for your good comment!
John Watts
Can you please follow up on Hearsay? As you mentioned in this video. If possible, Thank you :)
Will do thanks for the reminder!
But because they cannot authenticate their evidence it is deemed inadmissible and considered hearsay (isn’t it)?
Those are all different concepts. Authentication is showing the document is what it says it is (i.e. not a forgery etc). Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of what is asserted.
The completeness doctrine simply says if you introduce part of a document, you must introduce the whole document if the other side demands it.
Hope that helps and thanks for comment!
John
Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Very much appreciated
You are very welcome!!
extremely helpful. being sued for a capital one credit card back in 2015. unifunds attorney sent me a motion for summary disposition, and i see 2 "one page" bill of sale between two debt collectors, with the purchase price blotted out. they also sent a so called purchase i made, but the document only includes the last 4 digits of the account number. im thinking that i could also challenge that as well
I've got a video coming for you on this in a couple of days thanks!
John
@@johngwatts thx looking forward to it
Very welcome. Have a great weekend!
Best education ever,every time
Thanks John
Awesome stuff ! 🙂
Thanks!
Hi Jon, I’m being sued by PRA and i have a set trial for January 2022 I recently contacted PRA and asked for proof of ownership of this debt and all they sent me was a letter saying “account number ----- and it’s proceeds were sold assigned and transferred by the seller to PRA on 11/19/2020” I thought they would send over a bill of sale or something of that sort but all I got was this letter with PRA letter head what can I do in this case? Would this be enough to show they own my debt?
To add on to this I spoke to an attorney who says he can help me settle my claim but wouldn’t want to risk going to trial and possibly loosing I just wish I knew what my chances were