Hi, are you familiar with Richard Cornforth. He teaches how to assert your rights when you are being sued by a bottom feeder. Don't forget that the courts are at your disposition, we tell the courts what we want them to do.
On the scenario I presented above, why would you let the plaintiff (lawyer alone) present his case if what he is telling is all consider hearsay because of the lack of a witness. Why would you be afraid of the judge, he is supposed to protect your rights in the courtroom at all times.
I don't want to play lawyer, I was put in the position by a bottom feeder and I was forced to educate myself in this matters. In the beginning, I was very afraid but, as time goes by, I have been learning from a lot of people like you, what to do.
Thanks for your thoughts.

Where did you get that idea? If it was from this Comforth guy, then I don't think much of his advice.

The court system exists to apply the law. It is there to make sure that each party in an action is treated fairly. YOU don't tell the courts what you want, the LAW tells them what they should do. A judge is not supposed to protect your rights, a judge is there simply to make sure that the law is applied correctly. In doing so the judge will be protecting your rights, but that's not his main purpose. He wiolll also be protecting the rights of the other party by seeing the law is applied correctly.

But judges are human. They will get annoyed if someone starts objecting without being able to cite the exact rule they are objecting to and if they make frequent objections. Unless you are being tried in front of a jury (highly unlikely), you don't need to worry about what the other side is saying. The judge will know the rules of evidence and he will discount hearsay testimony. You will have the chance to point out to the judge that it is hearsay testimony when you get your chance to speak. Again, there is NO jury to impress here. You need to simply show the judge that the plaintiff has not proven their case.

I agree with most of your opinion but think of this. You tell the court what to do when you cite previous decisions that make jurisprudence and the judge must abide by this decisions. When you file motions to move the court to act and you cite jurisprudence, you are telling the court what you want them to do.
PLease check Richard Cornforth, he will open your eyes with what he teaches.
Thanks for your opinions.

I'm sorry but you have it wrong. When you file motions, cite precendents, etc. you are not "telling" the court anything. You are petitioning the court to make a ruling. The judge will make that ruling based on their interpretation of statute, case law, precendents and their own human prejudices.

I took a look at Comforth's site and didn't see anything to greatly impress me. A lot of the things he teaches are things I have been saying for years. But if he is teaching that the judicial system is set up for the layman to control then he is doing his students a disservice. If you check out a lot of the advice here, you will see that we usually strongly recommend retaining an attorney, especially if one is going up against another attorney. Attorneys go through 4 or more years of education, and many more years of training and experience. Going pro se against an attorney is like going into a war against guns armed with bows and arrows. You might get some hits but you will most likely lose.

Just to be clear, I don't like the way it is. I really wish our legal system was such that a person could reasonably represent themselves without legal representation. Comforth alludes to this. If you go into court thinking that justice will prevail you may be disappointed. What matters is legal proof.

And I will repeat, the only time you have to care that the opposition is presenting lots of illegal evidence is when you are in front of a jury. If the case is being decided by a judge, then let them present your case and you then present yours. The judge will decide according to the legal facts.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Hi, George. Here is the update I promised you.

I answered the supplemental interrogary objecting to their request based on the info they want is not relevant to the case.
They sent me back a letter stating that my answer was improper due to R. 4:10-2a. They sent the question again.
Are you familiar with this rule. (New Jersey, Special civil part) Any suggestions?

Also they filed for summary judgment. I file a motion to dismiss. They sent me a letter saying that Plaintiff is not seeking a default judgment. They say that discovery is ongoing and they cite a case PRINTING MART v. SHARP ELECTRONICS and they state that dismissal is inappropriate. I used for the dismissal the argument on R6:6-3 that speaks about proofs necessary when a party seeks default judgment. Any thoughts?

Also I sent them interrogatories on MArch 11. Their answer is that I failed to comply with R.6:4:-39(a) and R 4:17-2 as the interrogatories are out of time.
Do I have any recourse or I really screwed up and I sent my interrogatories late?

Don't forget that they are claiming on the other letter that Discovery is ongoing.

Any thoughts would be highly appreciated. Thanks for your time.

answered the supplemental interrogary objecting to their request based on the info they want I


Hi, Scott, I have a few questions and maybe you have some ideas on how to handle the following situation.
Plaintiff sent me back a letter stating that my answer to supplemental interrogatories was improper due to R. 4:10-2a. They sent the question again.(state all the credit accounts I open and closed since 1995) I objected, stating that info is not related to case.
Are you familiar with this rule. (New Jersey, Special civil part) Any suggestions?

Also they filed for summary judgment. I file a motion to dismiss. They sent me a letter saying that Plaintiff is not seeking a default judgment. They say that discovery is ongoing and they cite a case PRINTING MART v. SHARP ELECTRONICS and they state that dismissal is inappropriate. I used for the dismissal the argument on R6:6-3 that speaks about proofs necessary when a party seeks default judgment. Any thoughts? Aren't they perjuring themselves saying that they never were seeking for default judgment? Any thoughts?

Also I sent them interrogatories on MArch 11. Their answer is that I failed to comply with R.6:4:-39(a) and R 4:17-2 as the interrogatories are out of time.
Do I have any recourse or I really screwed up and I sent my interrogatories late? Can I file a motion to compel them to answer my questions?

Don't forget that they are claiming on the other letter that Discovery is ongoing.

Any thoughts would be highly appreciated. Thanks for your time.

At this point, I would just urge you to consult with a general practice attorney. You are deeply involved with the procedural steps in a civil case, and as you have indicated, mis-steps can be costly if not handled in a timely and proper manner. After this case is completed, perhaps you would be interested in attending paralegal or law school because you are very interested in the subject.

First, they file for summary judgement you file for a motion to dismiss. Neither they nor you make the decision here. They can tell you that you didn't submit the proper form all they want. THEY don't make that decision, the court does.

So when you go before the judge, he looks at your briefs and theyr briefs or statements or whatever. If you are acting pro se, he's going to give you the benefit of the doubt. If he needs something to be in a proper format according to certain rules he will, in all likelihood, give you the opportunity to resubmit. But most likely he's going to throw out the plaintiff's motions as unnecessary.

Again, this all goes to what I've been saying. The judge will rule on the case, you may your arguments, the plaintiff makes their arguments and the judge decides on the basis of the evidence and the law. Since it's the plaintiff's responsibility to prove their case, if they can't you win.

Thank you, George, for your words, unfortunatelly, I can't afford a lawyer and I have not been able to find a pro bono lawyer. That it is I, greatly appreciate the advise of people like you. If you have any ideas regarding the questions I posted above please let me know.

Thanks Scott, I fully understand what you are saying, but my question was regarding if you know of the rules I mentioned on the posting regarding discovery timelines. And again thank you for your responses.

Interrogatories

The Rules of Court provide for an exchange of information by the parties. Whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant, questions from the opposing party, called "interrogatories," must be answered within 30 days.
Special Civil FAQ

You may get an additional three days if you received interrogatories through the mail.

Hi George, I went to court today and I lost the case. The judge started reviewing a motion for summary judgment and he found that my answers were not appropriate so there were no new issues inthecase . THen I tried to tell him that the plaintiff's lawyer could not testify that his testimony was consider hearsay, and the judge told me that this rule did not apply because he was reading the info from the interrogatories they sent me so it was my own admissions to the facts that did me in.
Then I disputed the amount they were tryng to collect and the judge said that the amount of the debt was not relevant that the plaintiff was the owner of the account and that was the fact.
So, he entered a judgment against me. Plaintiff had no witness.
Any suggestions, Do you think that I can appeal this.

Sorry to hear that you lost, but I'm not clear why. From what you are saying about the judges ruling, it appears he thought your defense was that the third party didn't have the right to collect the debt. And they apparently proved they did. I don't have a clue what you said in the interogatories that he was basing his ruling on. But I warned you about trying to play lawyer too much. I told you to stick with simple facts about whether they could prove you had opened the account or not. That was your only real defense.

Sounds to me like you fell into all the traps I warned you against.

If you made statements in the interrogatories that were incorrect due to your inexperience, you might have grounds for appeal. But if you admitted the account was yours in anyway. You are probably not going to prevail.

Hi Scott, this is how it went

We are in front of the judge, I was not sworn in neither the lawyer for the plaintiff. He had no witness, the judge says that he is going to start with the motion for summary judgment against me. There the plaintiff proofs that they own the account presenting the chain of documents with the transfer of the account to them, I tell the judge that I know that they are the owners of the account but that I was disputing the amount they were claiming. The judge says to me that the issue of the amount of money is irrelevant because in my answers to interrogatories I stated that I used the account, and I opened the account etc, basically I admitted to everything, I think that was the fact that did me in. Then I told the judge that the testimony of the attorney was hearsay but he told me that such rule had an exception and I think he referred to my answers saying that I admitted to owning the account and using the account.So that did not work.
Then he told me that if I had any document to proof that I did not owe the amount of money to the plaintiff and I told him that I did not have such document, so he granted the motion for summary judgment.
Do you think that I can appeal this on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, because there were no witnesses for the plaintiff or do you think it is done deal.

Thanks for all your responses, they were highly appreciated.

I think it's a done deal. In every thread here that discusses a similat circumstance we advise that you reply to interogatories by stating that you can neither affirm or deny the debt until its varified. Once you admitted that the account was yours, you basically lost.

Hi Scott, I think that I did myself in with the interrogatories, I gave them proof for their case. Well, I learned the lesson, like you said answer to the interrogatories with the statement that you can neither deny or admit until is verified. Thank you Scott.

Hey, how about the lack of jurisdiction?