Silencing Lawyersby Dr. Frederick D. Graves JD attorney at law
Jurisdictionary.comJust a quick tip today.
Lawyers cannot "testify".
They do it anyway.
Because people allow it!
The rules forbid it.
You can stop it, if you do what I teach!
You must stop it, if you want to win!
This mid-week Tips & Tactics can only touch on this very important point of lawsuit warfare, but do what I say here (and learn the rest in my leading, affordable, case-winning, official Jurisdictionary step-by-step 24-hour course that everyone is talking about) and you can stop the lawyer on the other side from cheating!
That's right!
It's cheating for lawyers to testify.
Why?
They lack "legal competence" to act as witnesses!
Lawyers lack personal, first-hand knowledge of the facts of their client's cases. In legal terms, we say they lack the requisite "competence" to testify. The only people who can testify to facts are people who have "personal, first-hand knowledge" of the facts. (More about this in my course.)
YOU MUST STOP LAWYERS FROM TESTIFYING!
They will sneak it in whenever they can. They will do all they can to get into the record facts for which they have no witnesses, documents, or things to prove those facts.
Not only that, but they will "testify to facts" for which they have witnesses just to emphasize the facts, and this too is against the rules.
The rules forbid lawyer testimony!
Learn from me and increase your odds of winning!
Lawyers will sneakily talk about facts that they have no witness to talk about, no documents or other things to use to prove the facts they talk about. They will "tell" the court the facts they cannot prove ... against the rules!
It is cheating of the highest order!
But, they will do it ... if you allow it!
It is against the rules ... rules that are your friend!
If you allow it, you weaken your case.
If you allow enough of it, you will lose!
Not enough time today to go into detail about this, but the next time the lawyer on the other side starts leading his own witness or telling the court what the facts are, you jump to your feet and say, "Objection, your Honor. Counsel is testifying. Counsel lacks personal first-hand knowledge of the facts to which he (or she) is testifying. Move to strike."
If the judge allows the cheating to continue, object again!
Many lawyers are afraid of the judges, so if you hire a lawyer and pay the lawyer good money, don't be surprised when your lawyer (who is taking your good money) fails to object when his friend the lawyer on the other side begins to testify! If you have a lawyer, insist that your lawyer objects to any introduction of facts by lawyers on the other side!
People pay lawyers to fight for them, but many lawyers refuse to fight the judge!
But, fighting judges is part of what it takes to win!
And, objecting forcibly is part of the tactic of winners!
If you don't have a lawyer, YOU MUST OBJECT!
Now is the time to order my affordable, case-winning Jurisdictionary step-by-step 24-hour course and study it carefully so you don't find yourself behind the 8-ball when it comes time to argue in court ... at hearings or at trial.
Winning is easy if you learn what I teach in my course!
I know what it takes to win. I practiced law nearly 25 years. I can help you, if you're willing to learn from me!
Pro se people often do not get justice.
Why?
Let's examine a few facts:
Most pro se people don't know the rules.
Most pro se people don't know how to prevent the lawyer on the other side from playing tricks with the rules.
Most pro se people make assumptions about what is "admissible evidence" and stuff that isn't.
Most pro se people don't know how to draft their pleadings or motions properly.
Most pro se people don't know why it's important to write proposed orders for the judge to sign.
Most pro se people don't know why, when, or how to make effective objections in court.
Most pro se people don't understand what facts are critical to winning a case and what facts are of no consequence but only muddy the waters with court-confusing insignificance.
Most pro se people don't know why it's so vitally important to cite controlling appellate cases in support of their pre-trial and trial motions.
Most pro se people don't know how to arrange for a written transcript to be made of all proceedings before the court, so they can control the judge.
Most pro se people waste valuable court time with non-essentials, fail to appreciate the needs of others who have their own problems to bring before the court and, as a consequence, tend to make judges dread pro se cases.
Pro se people who know what I explain so simply in the official Jurisdictionary step-by-step 24-hour course are winning and even getting compliments from judges and even opposing lawyers ... because they do it right!
Not all judges are "against" pro se people "just because they are pro se". Most of the judges I knew in my 25 years were good people who cared about other people and did their best to guarantee justice according to the rules.
But! You must know how to protect yourself!
Pro se parties who know the rules and how to use them to protect themselves from courroom corruption the way my Jurisdictionary step-by-step 24-hour course makes so easy-to-understand don't let crooked lawyers get away with their smoke-and-mirrors tricks!
Tennessee Rules of EvidenceRULE 601: GENERAL RULE OF COMPETENCY.
Every person is presumed competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.
[As amended by order entered January 24, 1992, effective July 1, 1992.]
Advisory Commission Comments.
This language is similar to T.C.A. § 24-1-101 [repealed], first sentence.
Virtually all witnesses may be permitted to testify: children, mentally incompetent persons, convicted felons. Rules 602 and 603 should be read in connection with this rule, however, because any witness must swear or affirm to tell the truth and must have personal knowledge of that truth. The common law rebuttably presumed children under fourteen incompetent, Ball v. State, 188 Tenn. 255, 219 S.W.2d 166 (1949), but the proposed rule is contra. See also T.C.A. § 24-1-101 [repealed], second sentence, making children under age thirteen competent in sexual offense prosecutions.
The most important statute referenced by the rule is the Dead Man Statute, T.C.A. § 24-1-203. It applies generally to prevent parties from testifying to transactions with a deceased person in actions by or against estates. While the statute occasionally causes proof problems, the rule leaves it intact. See also T.C.A. § 24-1-202 [repealed] on incompetents' estates.
Advisory Commission Comments [1992].
The amendment removes the earlier language requiring "of sufficient capacity to understand the obligation of an oath or affirmation"and establishes a rebuttable presumption of competency. Note, however, that Rule 602 requires lay witnesses to have personal knowledge of matters, and Rule 603 requires all witnesses to swear or affirm they will tell the truth.
RULE 602: LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness's own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703 relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
Advisory Commission Comments.
Basic to relevancy concepts is that a witness must know about the subject matter of testimony. This is the familiar requirement of first-hand knowledge.
Under Rule 703, experts may base an opinion on the factual findings of others. Also, party admissions need not be based on first-hand knowledge.
