Whether it is on voir dire, which is a limited examination before the witness testifies to determine the legal competency of the witness, or on actual cross examination, the object is to bring out facts that are helpful in making your case or defending your position. When I teach cross examination, I refer to the triad — three things you must do in order to reach your goal. The three things are first to have a simple question with a goal in mind. Second to listen to the answer. Third, is the follow up, because you knew the probable answer and now you want to bring home your point. This applies to every question.
The first requires preparation for trial in which you decide your narrative and then develop the key points necessary to bring the court to the point where the trier of fact (mostly judges in foreclosure cases) joins your narrative. You’ll know if they have joined you or are leaning that way by their ruling on objections, by the questions they ask — and one warning sign that you are losing them is when they ask you for the relevancy of your question. Without preparation and a strong narrative to which you are committed, you won’t be able to answer the question about relevancy and you will have no issue preserved for appeal. You are probably looking to establish a question of ownership of the loan and to establish a question of the balance due, if any. The details on this are left out of this article because the opposition reads this and will be ready for you if we publish the series of retreads that apply to trying a foreclosure case.
Second is listening. This is something that lawyers need to do and is the reason they were hired in the first place. The homeowner is too emotionally attached to listen. They hear but they don’t listen and they don’t understand the significance of the question or the answer. Coming to court with a list of questions is a good idea. But many lawyers and pro se litigants fail because of the difference between hearing and listening. The answer is that most people just hear what’s being said. Others take the time to actually listen to what’s being said. There is a significant and monumental difference between hearing and listening. Hearing means that someone “hears” what’s being said and then translates the message into a meaning for himself. When you listen, however, you also take an extra moment to think about the person who’s speaking. It’s only then that you’ll have a clear understanding of what is trying to be conveyed. And only then can you move on to the third step.
The third step is follow-up. This is often confused with moving on to the next question. But your first question in the triad is merely the set up. The real stuff is in your follow-up because you actually listen to exactly what is being said. If the lawyer for the bank asks if the witness is familiar with the books and records of the Servicer, your objection is going to be leading, lack of foundation, and potentially hearsay. If you don’t object then the testimony comes in simply because you failed to object and thus preserve the issue for appeal. You will be subject to the same objections from the other side if you don’t have your ducks in a row.
So if the witness says he is “familiar” with the books and records, you should ask why, and then follow up with questions directed at how he prepared, how he actually knows (personal knowledge) that there was a loan from ABC, and exactly what he looked at in terms of documentation or computer screens. The answers will surprise you in some cases. Take the time to listen to the surprise answer and pause a moment on what you want to do with it and how you can make that answer serve the interests of your client.
Filed under: CORRUPTION, education, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, Motions, Pleading, Servicer, trustee | Tagged: cross examination, foreclosure trials, hearsay, lack of foundation, leading question, objections at trial, triads, voir dire |
Certified Documents: Question? When I put together a Qualified Written Request (QWR) and I request Certified Copies of a Deed of Trust and the Note, they are suppose to send me certified copies. How can I ensure that they are copies of the original documents since they are suppose to have the original documents? What prevents them from getting a notary in their office to falsify documents? How can I ensure that they have the original documents?
Found at the jdsupra legal news site
How Recent Fiduciary Duty Cases Affect Advice To Directors And Officers Of Delaware And Texas Corporations
500+ pages
I definitely know nothing after trying to read through this.
I remember early on when people were stating certain businesses were not registered with the Secretary of their state and master servicer talking about common stock shares.
“Under both Delaware and Texas law, a Charter must be filed with the Secretary of State to bring a corporation into existence”
One statement out of hundreds of thousands.
It’s a book.
Someone may find it useful to know. Where else can or has all this information been put into one place without having to attend a college course or purchase a book?
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/how-recent-fiduciary-duty-cases-affect-a-42927/
Trespass Unwanted
This link found at stevequayle’s site.
Funny.
Talk about modifications!
Credit card company can call, or email, text, fax, visit you at work, or at home, can suppress their caller id and identify them self any way they want.
Laughing.
This was received by a current card holder, who is probably carrying a balance, and this is an expressed contract. I’m sure he doesn’t even know he can send something in writing to let them know he doesn’t agree. Most will accept it and toss it in a drawer not knowing what they’ve accepted.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
We be lenders, disguised as borrowers by the lenders that borrowed from us.
Laughing.
http://newswatch.us/capital-one-now-makes-house-calls-says-it-can-show-up-at-cardholders-homes-workplaces/
Trespass Unwanted
It wasn’t what a pro se didn’t do or even those with an attorney didn’t do –
It was what the judges didn’t do the JUDGES DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS OF THE LAND that made all of us have our properties stolen by Fraud
“Without preparation and a strong narrative to which you are committed, you won’t be able to answer the question about relevancy and you will have no issue preserved for appeal.” It’s not enough. Good attorneys never ask a question to which they don’t already know the answer. Takes a hell of a preparation. Narative alone won’t do it. This blog is full of “narratives”. Very few questions asked have much relevancy to any specific case. And very few are focused enough to allow for serious headways. Running like a rabbit in every direction and making unsubstatiable claims out of school leads to the undoing of most homeowners’ legal action. Going ’round and ’round and ’round and revisiting old issues already ruled upon doesn’t help either. All it serves is to piss off judges and help banks win.
“The homeowner is too emotionally attached to listen. They hear but they don’t listen and they don’t understand the significance of the question or the answer. Coming to court with a list of questions is a good idea. But many lawyers and pro se litigants fail because of the difference between hearing and listening.” The homeowner is also too emotionally attached to even read without becoming defensive and snarly. So far, homeowners posting here take everything personally. If they have that attitude in court, they’re done! Shoot! Many homeowners actually take so much of everything personally that they even manage to get into a pissing contest with their own attorney!
And many pro se manage to get into a pissing contest with the judge himself!
The homeowner is too frickin’ emotional in the first place! If he can’t control himself, investing into an attorney is the best thing he can do for himself!
“The third step is follow-up.” One cannot follow up if one has already received an answer as a personal insult and put himself on the defensive. Most answers given by banks make no sense to most people. What’s the shame in saying: “I do not understand that response. Are you saying that…? Am I right to understand that you said A, B and C?” and reformulate over and over until it does make sense. Pride will kill any case, any day. A solid strategy of not leaving without getting key answers on records will go a long way toward winning.