I won my case by using evidence rule 106! I watched this video a couple hours before my hearing... thank you so much
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
That's fantastic! Who was it against and what happened? Congrats on winning!
@aliciabarrett91413 жыл бұрын
@@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
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
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.
@aliciabarrett91413 жыл бұрын
@@johngwatts I’ll email you what I have
@Consumer_Warrior3 жыл бұрын
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!
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
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!
@IndusPacificLawOffice3 жыл бұрын
"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?
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
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.
@thewatch12343 жыл бұрын
You are a blessing, with this eduction, every time I watch you I learn something.
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for watching and your comment!
@123edp3 жыл бұрын
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
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
Thanks! That's nice to hear that they are helpful. Have a great day! John
@IndusPacificLawOffice3 жыл бұрын
Good day sir, Awesome video.!
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
Thanks!!
@duljan310 ай бұрын
Best education ever,every time Thanks John
@woolliestcoder25123 жыл бұрын
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?
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
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
@audreymay93782 жыл бұрын
But because they cannot authenticate their evidence it is deemed inadmissible and considered hearsay (isn’t it)?
@johngwatts2 жыл бұрын
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
@markwoolf45692 жыл бұрын
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.
@johngwatts2 жыл бұрын
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
@innocentloyal2 ай бұрын
So no one showed in court….
@audreymay93783 жыл бұрын
Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Very much appreciated
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
You are very welcome!!
@anulakshmi16303 жыл бұрын
When I get in court and it feels like I won, how do I ask the judge to erase the debt from my credit report? Or is that automatic? Please do a video on wrapping things up when we win. Thanks for all you do.
@kayfabe68473 жыл бұрын
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.
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
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
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
Here's a video answering your comment -- thanks for great question! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aaqfhZtl0L6ldHU.html
@anulakshmi16303 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
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/
@c.c.69943 жыл бұрын
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!
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
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
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
Here is a video for you -- hope it helps! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q8hzddaKy-DYhqc.html
@kayfabe68473 жыл бұрын
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.
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
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.
@kayfabe68473 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
Yes that's correct -- Alabama is just the full document. Very interesting about the TX rule -- I like it. :)
@1muldrew20053 жыл бұрын
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
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
I've got a video coming for you on this in a couple of days thanks! John
@1muldrew20053 жыл бұрын
@@johngwatts thx looking forward to it
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
Very welcome. Have a great weekend!
@mattmatt79983 жыл бұрын
Can you please follow up on Hearsay? As you mentioned in this video. If possible, Thank you :)
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
Will do thanks for the reminder!
@brookwest18 күн бұрын
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
@audreymay93782 жыл бұрын
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?
@johngwatts2 жыл бұрын
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
@mattmatt79983 жыл бұрын
Awesome stuff ! 🙂
@johngwatts3 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@brendareyes19812 жыл бұрын
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?
@brendareyes19812 жыл бұрын
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