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

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.

Thank you for watching and your comment!

Thanks! That's nice to hear that they are helpful. Have a great day! John

Thanks!!

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

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

Mark here is a video that hopefully answers your question -- if I missed the main point let me know thanks! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mc6hldKpvZ6-lqs.html John Watts

So no one showed in court….

You are very welcome!!

The only win in a debt collection case is a take nothing judgment on a debt, and even that may not necessarily spell out that the collector has no right to ever collect the debt. I.E. - there are scenarios where you still owe the money, even if the collector cannot use the courts to collect it. I cannot think of any court that would ever order the bureaus to modify a credit report outside of a direct action against the bureaus to do so.

I did a video that should be released soon on this directly responding to the comment. Joshua is right sometimes you could win but it not impact the owing of the debt -- for example winning on statute of limitations does not prove you do not owe the debt. But most any other type of victory will. And you might want to watch this video -- kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ptKbndurttzLmmQ.html Thanks! John Watts

Here's a video answering your comment -- thanks for great question! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aaqfhZtl0L6ldHU.html

@@johngwatts Thank you so much! What a pain in the butt this self defense stuff is. Welp, gotta do it. I appreciate you, here in Atlanta.

Understand! If you beat these guys let me know as I can get you some help in GA. Thanks! john@wattsherring.com or www.alabamaconsumer.com/contact-us/

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! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q8hzddaKy-DYhqc.html

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. :)

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!

Will do thanks for the reminder!

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

Thanks!

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