Objection: Facts Not In Evidence!

Not infrequently you'll catch a lawyer "reminding" the court of

facts that have never been properly introduced into evidence ... no
documents, no witness testimony, nothing but the lawyer's sneaky
wordwork!
This will happen at hearings, at depositions, at trial, and in written
memoranda, motions, and other papers submitted to the court.
You must stop it immediately with a timely objection!
Such facts will be sneaked in. You can count on it, if the other side is represented by a lawyer. It
usually happens because the lawyer doesn't have any witnesses, documents, or other things he
can bring to court that might tend to establish the facts fairly by the use of admissible evidence ...
so the lawyer cheats!
His case is weak, and he knows it.
He also knows it's against the rules for him to mention facts that are not in evidence ... but expect
him to do it anyway.
If he can't call a witness to get the evidence in, and he can't find some tangible item or document
of some kind to get the evidence in, he'll just go ahead and talk about it as if it were already an
established fact ... if you allow it by failing to object!
Usually, the lawyer will simply go ahead and state the fact himself while examining a witness or
during his closing statement ... when there is nothing in evidence to support it ... and hope you
don't notice that he has offered inadmissible evidence unlawfully.
You will notice, if you are a Jurisdictionary student!
You will stand to your feet at once!
"Objection, your Honor. Facts not in evidence."
If the judge is a good one, he will instruct the lawyer to confine his recitation of facts to those
that have already been admitted and, if it's a jury case, he will instruct the jury to disregard the
lawyer's statement.
Here's an example. Consider yourself the defendant in a breach of contract suit. You've been
accused of taking 300 gallons of red paint from plaintiff's warehouse without paying for it.
The lawyer on the other side is working hard to prove you owe his client money, and he is trying
to paint his client in the best possible light, trying to show his client is an honest fellow who
would never sue someone without cause ... even if he has to break the rules to do so!

He off-handedly says, "My client was busy working as a volunteer at his church soup kitchen
while the defendant was stealing paint from my client's store."
There are no facts in evidence to support this statement.
The lawyer hasn't called any witnesses to corroborate either fact.
No documents nor anything else has been presented to the court to substantiate this biased claim.
The lawyer is testifying (in itself objectionable, as you'll learn in our complete self-help course)
but the facts he offers have not been presented to the court by any witnesses, documents, or other
things that might make those facts admissible.
You stand to your feet at once and say, "Objection. Facts not in evidence."
It is clearly permissible for a lawyer to remind the court what a particular witness may have
testified when previously questioned. If a witness offered evidence that you did load paint into
your truck on such-and-such date at such-and-such time, then it's perfectly permissible for the
lawyer to remind the court by saying something like, "The court will recall the testimony of the
plaintiff's secretary, Miss Scarlet, who told how she was enjoying a cigarette on the loading dock
that day when she saw the defendant back his truck up to the warehouse door and carry the
plaintiff's paint away."
That's not only permissible - it is good lawyering and perfectly proper.
It is equally permissible for the lawyer to offer evidence that his client was at his church serving
soup to the homeless on that date and at that time, provided he does so by offering competent
witness testimony, original documents, or other things that tend to prove what he says. If he
previously called the priest or pastor of the church to the stand and obtained competent testimony
reporting that the plaintiff was doling out soup at the time of the alleged taking, then he can
remind the court of evidence already admitted. It may be objectionable on the grounds it isn't
relevant where the pastor was when the paint was allegedly taken, but is otherwise good
lawyering, if the facts are in evidence when the lawyer mentions them.
It is never permissible for a lawyer (or pro se litigant) to simply offer facts without
corroboration.
Never.
Object on both grounds!
"Counsel is testifying."
"Facts not in evidence."

Lawyers are not supposed to "prove" cases by clever legal argument supported by their own
version of the facts ... yet you can count on them to do so IF YOU DON'T OBJECT!
A lawyer's version of the facts is, by itself, inadmissible and will be excluded by a good judge if
you object!
It is your job to require the opponent's lawyer to prove his clients' right-to-win by presenting
admissible evidence ... and admissible evidence only!
If the lawyer does otherwise, object!
If you do not control the lawyer on the other side, the lawyer will do whatever he can to win his
case ... and most judges will allow it, if you don't object!
Don't trust the lawyer on the other side, no matter how clean-cut and well-dressed he may appear.
There's a good reason why there are more jokes about lawyers than any other profession. Too
many lawyers are outright crooks, eagerly willing to twist the law at every opportunity.
And, don't expect the judge to control the opposing party's lawyer for you! He won't in most
cases. It isn't his job. He is responsible to rule on objections. He cannot rule if you don't object!
It's up to you to object!
So, object ... and, if necessary, renew your objections (as we teach in our tutorial on objections
that's included in the complete Jurisdictionary self-help for non-lawyers course).
And, if the court refuses to rule, move the court to do so!
And, if that doesn't work, object once again - and make certain the court reporter is getting every
word!
If you have a lawyer, don't trust him to object when needed. Many lawyers will not object,
simply because they don't want to upset the judge! Go the extra mile. Make certain. Command
your own lawyer, if you have one ... and don't pay for services you aren't getting! If the lawyer
won't object, stand to your feet and say, "Your honor! I just fired my lawyer, and I object! Facts
not in evidence!"
When an objection is due, make it, and get the judge to rule on it.

Allegations & Proof

To win your lawsuit:

1. Allege all the Facts
2. Prove all the Facts
Puppet shows for the jury don't work! You must allege all the facts in your pleadings and then
use your 5 pre-trial discovery tools to prove all the facts you alleged.
It's just that simple ... as our Jurisdictionary course shows.
Alleging all the necessary facts is like drawing plans for a workshop project. You make a detailed
drawing of all the parts and how they fit together. Expert workmen always begin with a plan,
then they follow their plan.
Pleadings are your lawsuit blueprint ... whether you're a plaintiff or defendant. Pleadings are the
tool you use to allege all the facts that support your case. They give you and the court a clear
vision of the final result you seek. In your blueprint pleadings you set out the facts that support
the legal basis that requires the court to rule in your favor.
Failure to start with powerful pleadings always results in a weak case and foreseeable failure in
court.
Your pleadings' weakness is the other side's strength.
If you're a plaintiff, the blueprint is a "complaint" in which you allege all ultimate facts necessary
to support all essential elements of your cause(s) of action (what federal courts call a "claim on
which the court can grant relief"). You make it clear that the court is obligated to rule in your
favor if you prove your alleged facts by the greater weight of admissible evidence using your 5
pre-trial discovery tools.
If you're a defendant, your blueprint is an "affirmative defense" in which you allege all ultimate
facts necessary to support all essential elements of your defenses. You counter the plaintiff's
allegations of fact with allegations of your own. Prove the facts of your affirmative defenses by
the greater weight of admissible evidence, using your 5 pre-trial discovery tools, and you win!
It's really that simple with Jurisdictionary.
In more than 22 years as a practicing attorney, however, I met only a few lawyers who
understood this simple truth about litigation. They rattled sabers, postured, pretended, wore
extremely expensive suits, and resorted to underhanded trickery and outright deceit. I won in
spite of their crooked tactics, because I knew the simple basics we give you in our affordable,
step-by-step Jurisdictionary self-help for non-lawyers course.
Most pro se people (non-lawyers going to court on their own) draft pleadings as if they were
writing a "letter to the judge", weaken their case at the very start by failing to lay out a

powerfully complete blueprint for their proofs, then lose because they don't know how to use
their 5 pre-trial evidence discovery tools.
Jurisdictionary shows you how to effectively allege all the facts you need to win, and then
shows you how to use your 5 pre-trial discovery tools to prove those facts with the greater
weight of admissible evidence.
If you don't understand this simple truth, you don't have the slightest chance of winning in court,
however in more than 22 years I saw very few proper complaints and even fewer effective
affirmative defenses filed by lawyers for the other side. That's good news for you! Most lawyers
don't know how to win! Learn what Jurisdictionary makes so easy-to-learn that an 8th grader
can understand it all in a single weekend, and you'll have the competitive edge you need to win,
even against experienced lawyers.
With the step-by-step Jurisdictionary self-help for non-lawyers course, you'll know how to
allege causes of action and affirmative defenses. You'll also know how to use your 5 pre-trial
discovery tools to prove the facts you've alleged by the greater weight of admissible evidence ...
so you win!
Winners properly allege and persuasively prove.
With Jurisdictionary you can control the court, forcing the judge to give you the judgment you
deserve ... once you allege and prove the essential facts the way we make so easy-to-understand.
Learn what we teach, and you'll know more than most lawyers I met in more than 22 years
practicing law in state and federal courts!

When to Take Depositions

I love to take depositions!

Especially when the deponent (i.e., the witness being deposed) is the opposing party, whose
crooked lawyer is trying to hide evidence I need to win my case!
You can make them fidget and squirm. You can make them sweat bullets. And, if you use
depositions the Jurisdictionary way, you can make them spill the beans!
You can depose any witness who has or may have admissible evidence relative to your case. You
can subpoena them for a deposition before trial, so you'll know what they are going to say before
trial.
Here are 4 critical things to remember about depositions:
1. Get as many facts as you can before the deposition.
2. Stick to the essential fact elements.
3. Obey the rules of evidence.
4. Object when the other side breaks those rules.
In today's Tips & Tactics Newsletter, I explain some things about the first point. You'll learn the
other points and much more about depositions and evidence discovery in the Jurisdictionary
step-by-step self-help for non-lawyers course. Order now!
#1 -- Get as many facts as you can before the deposition.
Even experienced lawyers mistakenly take depositions too early in the case. I've never
understood why, unless they really don't care if they win or lose so long as they can charge their
clients money for the time they spend uselessly spinning litigation wheels and throwing mud
against the walls to see how much will stick! Perhaps they've never learned what
Jurisdictionary teaches. After all, law school professors aren't lawyers. A law school education
doesn't really tell you much about winning lawsuits the easy way. I think many lawyers just don't
know any better. They all know that the longer they can drag out a lawsuit the more money they
can take from their clients, so what difference does it make if they take a few depositions too
early?
You will not make this mistake if you learn what Jurisdictionary teaches!
You usually get just one chance to question each witness under oath before trial. That's what
depositions are for. You get only one chance to put a witness under oath and ask what the witness
knows about the essential facts of the case. If you aren't prepared for the deposition and later
decide you want to call the witness in for additional questioning before trial, you'll be very
disappointed. The court will not allow it, unless you can show the witness lied at the first
deposition or some equally extreme circumstance justifies your getting another bite at the apple.
You had your chance.

You get just one chance to depose each witness.

It doesn't make sense to go to trial without first knowing what all the witnesses are going to say,
yet lawyers do it all the time. You won't, if you learn what Jurisdictionary teaches.
It amazes me how the supposedly clever lawyers on Law & Order and other TV shows are
surprised when their own witnesses tell a tale different from what they said when they were
interrogated by the detectives or even the lawyers themselves, who apparently assume their
witnesses would never lie! If they'd put these people under oath and ask their questions before
trial, they would know what the witnesses are going to say. And, if the witnesses choose to
change their tune at trial, the lawyers would have the ability to prosecute them for perjury.
Never assume a witness is going to stick to the story he tells when you question him informally
before trial. You can never know what a witness will say when trial time rolls around, unless you
depose the witness under oath to create a sworn written transcript you can use at trial to keep the
witness straight!
Use your subpoena power and requests for production to get the documents and other things you
need to prove the essential fact elements you need to win your case. Use interrogatories and
requests for admissions so you have even more of the essential facts at hand. Then, and only
then, are you ready to schedule your depositions.
That way, when the court reporter swears the witness in at the deposition, you can ask the
deponent questions about things you wouldn't have known about if you'd scheduled the
deposition earlier in the case ... like stupid lawyers do.
The one exception is when you have a witness who is on death's door or otherwise about to leave
the court's jurisdiction. For those witnesses, of course, you'll want to take their depositions early.
But, again, if a few days' delay will give you more facts to question them about, put off taking
the deposition as long as possible.
Since most opponents hedge their responses to discovery tools, trying to "hide the ball" with
"smoke and mirrors" tactics, it just makes sense to delay taking depositions until you have as
much as possible of your discovery completed. That way you'll have the factual ammunition you
need to blow the liars out of the water and win your lawsuit, instead of being victimized by the
typical lawyer-orchestrated tricks of the trade that too often pervert justice in our courts!

Strip Crooked Lawyers!

Most humans are not formally trained in the art of twisting the truth, bending the rules, or
distorting the testimony of honest people to make more money winning lawsuits with trickery
and deceit.
To the typical lawyer, however, such practices are commonplace.
It's part of the legal profession's skill set. Lawyers are trained to find and use every possible
means for hiding the truth, so long as they can do so without getting caught with their pants
down!
Jurisdictionary shows you how easy it is to protect yourself from crooked lawyers by revealing
their deceitful games using discovery tools effectively ... bringing their corrupt practices out in
the open on the public court record for everyone to see!
The problem many people have (those who don't yet know what Jurisdictionary
makes so easy to understand) is being intimidated by lawyers on the other side or
even their own lawyer. Lawyers know this about you. They prey on public legal
ignorance, knowing the average person has little or no knowledge of what it takes
to get at the truth they hide - or how to put that truth on the record.
For example, Jurisdictionary receives frequent emails from good people
complaining they requested the opposition to answer some questions or produce some documents
only to receive objections or no response at all.
At this point (if they don't yet know what Jurisdictionary makes so easy to understand and use)
these people fold their tents ... and, by doing so, pretty much guarantee they will lose their
lawsuit.
Without evidence you cannot prove your case. Period!
If you allow the other side to "hide the ball" without knowing how to force the other side to
produce what you request and answer your questions or go to jail, you voluntarily hand them
certain victory.
After 21 years of winning lawsuits in state and federal courts, I can tell you there are only two
kinds of lawyers: (1) those who try to find the truth and put it in the record and (2) those who try
to hide it by any means available ... no matter how shameful that means may be.
Fortunately, the rules of our American due process system give you five (5) powerful tools to get
at the truth and and three (3) tools to require the other side to comply ... whether they like it or
not!
Your 5 discovery tools are:
1. Requests for Admissions
2. Requests for Production

3. Interrogatories
4. Depositions
5. Subpoenas and Other Court Orders
Your 3 discovery enforcement tools are:
1. Motion to Compel Discovery
2. Motion for an Order to Show Cause
3. Motion for Contempt
When properly used, these easy-to-understand tools can force even the most beligerent legal
trickster to give you the evidence you need to win your case.
Why allow the lawyers to win with crooked tactics when it's so very easy to learn how to turn the
tables on them and force the court to give you the victory you deserve?
Without what Jurisdictionary teaches you don't have a chance!
Catch your opponent's lawyer with his pants down!
This is how you exercise your rights in this country.
We make it easy so you can win!

Defeat Legal Sharks !

Ever wonder why there are so many lawyer jokes?
Here's a lawyer, eating his own client.
Head first, of course!
Don't let it happen to you!
Whether you're paying your own lawyer or fighting alone (pro se) against the other side's lawyer,
don't trust the lawyers ... or the judge!
Why? Let's ask that first question again. Ever wonder why there are so many lawyer jokes?
Lawyers are trained to be devious. Lawyers are taught to hide evidence, twist facts, and use
every dirty trick in the book to win for their clients. They are taught to believe, "If it's not strictly
illegal, then it's fair game!" And, after all, judges are lawyers, too!
If you have your own lawyer, you dare not trust him or her to do the right thing! If you're
fighting alone (pro se) you must know how to overcome the smoke-and-mirrors sneaky tricks the
other side will try to play on you. Prepare for the obvious ... legal trickery!
Here is the good news! Crooked lawyers are easy to defeat, if you know what Jurisdictionary
makes so easy and affordable to learn ... whether you're a defendant being sued or a plaintiff
suing someone else!
You will quickly learn how to (1) draft effective pleadings that tell the court what you're going to
prove, (2) compel the other side to reveal the facts you need to win, (3) subpoena reliable
evidence from other sources, (4) make timely objections that put the judge on notice you're
prepared to appeal, and (5) move the court with well-written memoranda that force the judge to
enter orders that favor your cause.
With Jurisdictionary you can stop the lawyers' tricks!
Too many people trust their own lawyers too much. They pay huge legal fees, wait sometimes
for years, then lose everything because their lawyer either (1) didn't do the easy things they could
have done, (2) bailed out at the last minute before the case went to trial, or (3) were afraid to
stand up to the judge and demand justice!
You have heard just such stories from others! We all have!
Even those who win often end up losing so much in time and legal fees they would have been
better off representing themselves with the powerful legal education provided by our 2-day casewinning Jurisdictionary self-help for non-lawyers course!

If you are paying a lawyer, you have a right to an effective, zealous advocate ... but, as lawyer
jokes prove, too often the lawyer you pay will either sell you out at the last minute or refuse to
fight for you!
If you can't afford a lawyer, you must never assume the lawyer on the other side will play fair or
that the judge can be trusted to "do the right thing". It just doesn't work that way in court. You
must protect yourself by learning what our affordable 2-day case-winning Jurisdictionary selfhelp for non-lawyers course teaches!
Learn the essential fact elements that win lawsuits, how to draft effective pleadings as defendant
or plaintiff, how to use the rules of evidence and make everyone play by those rules, how to
make effective objections, and much more!

Silencing Lawyers ...

(From our "Objections" Tutorial.)
The testimony most dangerous to your case is the un-sworn statements made
by lawyers who lack competence to state facts about which they have no
personal knowledge.
As Jurisdictionary teaches in our "Evidence Made Easy" tutorial, no one
should be allowed to testify to matters beyond that person's personal
knowledge. Such persons are said to lack "competence" to testify, and an objection should be
made immediately whenever such testimony is attempted.
Moreover, unless the person testifying is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, then no testimony whatever should be permitted ... and you must object immediately!
Lawyers are no exception.
Yet it happens all the time, and good people lose their lawsuits because lawyers on the other side
were allowed to tell the court what happened, what it looked like, who said what, and too many
other destructive things to list here in this newsletter.
Silence the lawyers by objecting immediately!
Lawyers should never be permitted to testify. Instead they should be required to present their
evidence by presentation of authenticated documents and upon the testimony of witnesses who
have first hand knowledge and are sworn to tell the truth!
Instead of asking questions of witnesses (who are competent to testify) to get the facts into
evidence properly, most lawyers just open their un-sworn mouths and being to tell the story that
favors their client ... even though everything they say is hearsay, since they were not present
when the events occurred. They lack competence to testify ... and you must object
immediately!
It happens all the time!
Be on guard for it. Be prepared to object!
When a lawyer begins to state facts outside his own personal knowledge ... facts he learned from
his clients or third persons ... facts he lacks competence to testify about in court ... object at once!
It isn't right or proper!
Yet, you'll find this sort of unfair manipulation of facts in nearly every case you come across. If a
lawyer cannot find tangible items or witnesses to offer as evidence in support of his case, he will
frequently attempt to get the evidence in anyway by stating facts about which he has no firsthand knowledge ... detailing the content of documents that aren't available, telling the court what

was said by someone who isn't present for cross-examination, or describing a scene or the
actions and behavior of people he never met.
To multiply this unlawful exploitation of due process, most lawyers are adept at using the
English language forcefully, illustrating their points with word-power most lay persons lack. It
doesn't matter that they are members of The Bar. It doesn't matter that they finished law school,
passed the bar, and enjoy a certain degree of prestige as they strut about the courtroom in
expensive clothing and highly-polished shoes. If they do not have first-hand knowledge of facts
they offer to the court, they lack competence, and a timely objection is essential.
Otherwise (if you allow them to do so) they will present damaging evidence in a light that
dishonestly influences the court against you. They will present facts about which they have only
the knowledge they've learned from others (i.e., no first-hand knowledge of their own), and you
will unnecessarily run the risk of losing as a direct result if you don't object and put a stop to it
immediately!
You must silence the lawyers ... or run the risk of allowing the court to consider the lawyer's
testimony as admissible evidence. It isn't admissible! No. Not by a long shot! The rules forbid
it.
Lawyers lack competence to testify! It is a corrupt practice. You must stop it before it begins.
A particular aspect of this abusive practice needs mentioning to help you control the inevitable.
The rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers (every state has them) limit the ability of a
lawyer to be both witness and counsel for his client. One may serve as lawyer for a client or a
witness for the client ... not both. If a lawyer insists on offering testimony and the court allows it
over your objection, you should move the court for an order finding that the lawyer is a witness
for the opposition. Either the lawyer is a lawyer and plays the strictly limited part of a lawyer, or
the lawyer is a witness and can no longer play the part of lawyer! If the court rules that a lawyer
is a witness, then move the court to disqualify him to testify pursuant to the state bar's rules of
professional conduct (which, of course, you will have already read and be prepared to cite by
scripture and verse). If a lawyer insists on offering testimony and the court allows it over your
objection and will not disqualify the lawyer, move the court to order the lawyer to take the oath
and submit to your cross-examination. Anyone offered as a witness must submit to be crossexamined by the other side under oath! It is no different if the person testifying is the other
side's lawyer!
Object! And if the judge overrules your objection or refuses to rule on it, be sure to renew your
objection before the court takes any action that would cement the damage. Make your record.
Take no prisoners!
Otherwise, unwanted evidence will come in without a competent witness and you will be further
injured in your cause by inability to cross-examine the "lawyer-witness". If the judge allows it,
object. If the judge will not order the lawyer to submit to cross-examination, object. And, every

time the lawyer offers facts as a "witness", object! And, when appropriate, renew your objection
before the court enters any rulings that rely on the incompetent testimony.
Remember: Your right to rely on the rules was bought with the innocent lives of heroes who died
to protect and preserve your ability to require every officer and agent of our government to obey
the rules of the law like everyone else. Lawyers and judges are no exception!
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as my Granddaddy used to say. He also said,
"There's more than one way to skin a cat!" If you don't get your way in court, prepare for appeal
by making timely objections and renewing them at the proper time.
Thanks to the internet and Jurisdictionary, the simple rules and tactics you need to win your
lawsuit are no longer hidden from you by the legal profession! We make it easy for you to learn
how to win in court.

Objection ... Facts Not In Evidence !

When a lawyer needs missing facts to win his case, he may try to sneak them in ... without
witnesses, without documents, without anything at all ... against the rules!
He may "remind" the court of facts never introduced into evidence, or he may make mention of
the missing facts while questioning a witness, as if the facts were already in.
You must stop it with a timely objection!
"Objection, your Honor! Facts not in evidence!"
They will do this at hearings, at depositions, at trial, and in written memoranda, motions, and
other papers submitted to the court.
Count on it, and be on guard. Use his tricks to show the hole in his case! The very fact that he
cheats shows he has no witnesses, documents, or other things to establish the missing facts he
needs to win.
So, object ... and make the court see the holes in his case!
You cannot hope to win if you don't know more about objections, together with evidence,
pleadings, motions, and all that we show you in our 24-hour step-by-step self-help for nonlawyers course.

Your Lawsuit's Winning Hand ...

If you hold the winning hand In a game of poker you call your
opponents' bets, lay your cards on the table, and collect your winnings.
You don't see the other side's cards until the game is over.

In a lawsuit you must make the other side show his cards as quickly as you can. You should
never wait until trial to see what he has. Winners force the other side to show his hand before
trial.
Winning lawsuits is all about getting the other side to show his cards before trial. Lawyers are
trained to use every dirty trick in the book to hide the facts and then use "gotcha" tactics to
surprise you with those facts at trial. That's how crooked lawyers win.
Jurisdictionary's 24-hour step-by-step self-help course shows you how to use discovery
weapons wisely and how to move the court to compel the other side to show his hand before
trial.
Most lawyers respond to discovery with words like, "Objection. Overbroad, vague, ambiguous,
seeks to inquire into the attorney client privilege, and exceeds the scope of discovery."
Your request may be none of those things. Doesn't matter. The typical crooked lawyer will
respond with such objections anyway, knowing your winning hand is useless unless you can
prevent him from hiding the evidence so he can surprise you at trial.
When you receive a response like this, immediately file a motion to compel discovery. Set your
motion for hearing and support your motion with a well-cited memorandum of law that you can
argue at the hearing to make your record that the information you seek is discoverable
information you have a right to know before trial.
Jurisdictionary shows how in our 24-hour course.
Holding the winning hand in a lawsuit means having the facts and law on your side ... but that's
not enough. You must make the other side show his cards before the game is over.
Learn what I learned during 22 years of winning lawsuits in state and federal courts. Learn how
to do more than simply show the court the cards you hold. Learn how to force the other side to
show his cards ... all his cards ... before trial.
Be clever in presenting your case and merciless in forcing the other side to produce evidence
without the usual lawyer tricks.
Winning lawsuits is easy, once you force the other side's hand!
Don't get fleeced like innocent sheep. Offering your own evidence and expecting the judge to do
"what's right" is foolish. The other side will play every dirty trick in the book to hide his
evidence and, if he is represented by a licensed lawyer, the judge will probably allow it. Don't
think for a minute you can simply lay your cards on the table and hope for the best. Sheep lose
lawsuits.

Be sly like a fox! Anticipate the other side's crooked tactics and never trust the judge to do what's
right. Make your record. Use all five of your discovery weapons, then force the court to compel
the other side to show his cards at once!
If you hold a winning hand, you shouldn't have to go to trial ... if you play your cards the
Jurisdictionary way!
If the other side doesn't have a winning hand they can only win by hiding the evidence. Don't let
them!
Jurisdictionary's 24-hour step-by-step self-help course shows you how to play your cards and
how to force your opponent to show his cards ... all his cards ... before trial .
That's how you win!

Why You Must Object in Court !

Lawsuits are nothing like a hockey game where a player's objections have no effect on the
referee. In hockey, if a player has a beef, he can complain to the referee until he's benched, and
that'll be the end of it.
In court you must object ... or lose!
"Objection!" stops the proceedings until the judge rules.
"Objection!" calls foul on the other side ... and sometimes calls foul on the judge! Failure to
object lets fouls go unnoticed - then you can expect two (2) bad things to happen:
1. You will not be allowed to complain later to an appellate court about the errors that
caused you to lose, and
2. The judge will know you cannot win on appeal, so he will do as he wishes, knowing his
ruling cannot be reversed.
When you fight in court, the other side will play every dirty trick in the book to win. Lawyers are
trained to push the limits. Many will intentionally break the rules to get what they want. You
must be on your toes at all times. Anticipate the other side will break the rules. Many times the
judge will break the rules. Damaging evidence will come in to hurt your case. Rules of procedure
will be violated. Bias and perjury will be allowed.
If you don't know how to object, you will surely lose!
Don't count on the judge to interfere! If you don't object, the errors will be allowed ... and they
will work against you all the way!
Either object when the error is made, or you lose your right to complain later. It's your job to toss
a red flag when your opponent commits a foul. You must know when, why, and how to object.
If you don't know when, why, and how to object, you will lose!
You want to win, don't you?

What is Hearsay Evidence?

You must understand what hearsay is if you want to win in court.

It isn't what you think it is.

In court, "hearsay" has a very technical meaning that you must understand completely ...
so, please read on ... understanding that your weekly "Tips & Tactics" are brief introductions to
topics we discuss. We're confident you find them easy-to-understand and that you'll want to
order our equally easy-to-understand complete $219 step-by-step self-help course to get the rest
of the story, so you and your lawyer (if you have one) can know what you must do to win your
lawsuit.
Let's start with a simple Jurisdictionary definition of hearsay.
"An out-of-court statement offered to prove what it says."
When I was in law school my evidence professor spent days on this, trying to explain his
amazingly complex definition. None of us in the class understood what he was talking about,
because his definition was not "easy-to-understand". That was then. Now you and your friends
have Jurisdictionary to help you understand all you need to win your lawsuit! Please read on.
Let's take the simple Jurisdictionary definition apart and see what its two separate components
really mean.
Consider the first part of the definition.
What is an out-of-court statement? Well, it's just what it says, a statement made by someone
somewhere other than "in court". Such statements may be made in writing, verbally, or painted in
the sky with smoke trails from an airplane. If the statement is not made in court, it is an "out-ofcourt statement".
But, there's more! If a statement is made at a deposition where a certified court reporter is
creating a transcript, it is considered as being made "in court". Both sides are invited to
participate in depositions and ask questions, so neither side can complain they didn't have an
opportunity to examine the deponent witness under oath. Courts treat deposition statements as
being "in court".
The key point to latch onto here is that both sides have an equal opportunity to question the
person making the statement under oath. A statement made by a witness at a deposition may in
fact be hearsay, if the witness is testifying to what somone else said, but it is what the other
person said that is hearsay ... the part that was said out-of-court by someone who could not be
questioned under oath by both sides.
If the person who actually made the statement - the pilot in a sky writing airplane or the
unknown author of some cryptic intra-office memo, for example - is not "in court" under oath
and subject to be cross-examined, the statement is inadmissible hearsay (unless it falls into one
of the exceptions explained in our complete 24-hour Jurisdictionary step-by-step self-help
course you need to get).

Now for the interesting second part.

Is the statement offered to prove the truth of what it says?
If an out-of-court statement is not offered to prove what it says, it is not hearsay ... even though
the statement is made out-of-court, is not under oath, and neither side has an opportunity to
cross-examine. In order for a statement to be hearsay, it must be offered to prove the truth of
what it says!
"She said she'd bake a cake after church next Easter Sunday." If a witness testifies her neighbor
said this, and if the other side objects, you should make clear to the court that the statement is not
hearsay. If the witness testifies to what her neighbor said she was going to do, then the out-ofcourt statement is only offered to prove what the neighbor said, not that what she said was true.
If it isn't offered to prove the neighbor actually went to church or baked a cake, then it isn't
hearsay ... even though it was an out-of-court statement.
Don't let the other side trick you!

Courtroom Apples & Oranges ...

Want to win?

You must stop your opponent's lawyer from playing the apples and oranges game.
After more than 22 years as a licensed attorney practicing in state and federal courts, I believe
most winnable lawsuits are lost because the loser didn't know how to demand that apples are
NOT oranges.
Crooked lawyers twist the truth. They play games with words. In my 22 years of practice, they
did everything they could to confuse the court ... whether it was the truth or not.
Apples are round. So are oranges.
Apples are fruit. So are oranges.
Apples are good for you. So are oranges.
Apples are oranges.
No!
Pay careful attention to the lawyer on the other side!
Be prepared with this ancient maxim of law so you can jump to your feet, "Objection, your
honor! A thing similar is never exactly the same!"
Don't let the other side trick you!

Gassing the Bar ...

Hot air may keep a balloon afloat, but it won't win your lawsuit.
Too many words ruin the argument.

Yet, many of you are using far too many words to carry your case forward, and it's hurting you!
A well-played lawsuit is a simple machine with only a few essential parts. There are:

Pleadings
Motions

Memoranda (supporting or opposing motions)

Discovery Requests

Notices

Orders

That's pretty much it.

These are your tools, designed to accomplish specific tasks or objectives ... and, like tools, they
must be sharp if you want them to do the job effectively!
Many inexperienced lawyers and most pro se litigants (who go to court on their own without
licensed counsel) go on and on and on, when only a few simple sentences would do what's
needed.
As a consequence, instead of strengthening their case, they weaken it by introducing issues that
have nothing to do with the outcome!
Don't gas the bar. Blow it away!

Your Contempt Power ...

You have power in the pen of a courtroom judge ... power to put people in jail for you if they
don't follow the rules and play fair!
If you want to win your lawsuit, you must know how to use this power to control your opponent
and his lawyers.
Most people never stop to think about why we go to court. They assume a judgment or other
order of the court is all they need, a piece of paper with some writing on it.
By itself, however, that piece of paper is worthless. The power of court judgments and orders is
the threat of jail time!
Power in your hands ... once Jurisdictionary shows you how.
Suppose you serve your opponent with a Request for Production seeking documents relevant to
your case, and they respond with objections and excuses or no response at all. What can you do?
1st Step: File a Motion to Compel and set it for hearing. Support your motion with a
memorandum, showing why the judge should compel production. At the hearing, if you follow
Jurisdictionary procedure, the court will enter an Order Compelling Production, giving the
other side a set period of time to respond.
2nd Step: If they don't respond within the time set out in the order, file a Motion to Show Cause.
This motion explains to the court that your opponent failed and refused to obey its order.
Disobeying an order is grounds for contempt. Set your motion for hearing. Judges don't like
people disobeying their orders, so the judge will enter an Order giving the other side a much
shorter time to obey.
3rd Step: If they don't obey the second order, file a Motion for Contempt and set it for hearing.
At the hearing, if your opponent has not yet produced what he was ordered to produce, the judge
will probably have him jailed on the spot and kept in jail until the documents are produced.
If he isn't jailed immediately, the judge may give him a few hours to comply before issuing an
arrest warrant. I had a morning hearing where the judge ordered my opponent to bring me the
papers before 4:00 that afternoon or be jailed. We needed them to prove our case. He brought
them. We won.
The goal of every lawsuit is a judgment or other court orders that favor your cause. The power of
a judge's pen to order civilian law enforcement officers to take your opponent into custody if he
disobeys the court's orders is your power to win!
You can make our American legal system work for you ... once you know how to play your cards
the Jurisdictionary way.

Tips & Tactics

Keeping Your Opponent Honest !

True or false? It's not just about teeth!
Whether you win or lose in court hangs on those words? What do you
do when someone lies on the court record? Do you let it slide by, or do
you attack?
Expect it to happen! People lie. Even under oath.
Whenever it happens - and it will happen - go on the warpath!
For example, responses to your Requests for Admissions (one of your five evidence-discovery
tools) are frequently fabrications. If the request is properly drafted, there can only be one-of-two
answers. The response is either "True" or "False".
So, what do you do when you know for certain the item you've requested them to admit is "true",
but they answer "false"?
Thank your lucky stars! You have them pinned ... if you know how to use your other four
discovery tools.
Remember: You have five (5) tools to discover evidence.
1. Requests for Admissions
2. Requests for Production
3. Interrogatories
4. Depositions
5. Subpoenas and other Court Orders

You can use these tools (if you have Jurisdictionary to show you how) to trap liars in their own
web of deceit.
For example, suppose you serve your opponent with a request to admit he doesn't have any
papers signed by you. If he refuses to admit, you simply serve him with a request for production,
asking him to produce the papers signed by you.
Sound too simple? That's because it is!

Evidence Admissibility and Discovery ...

Don't let the lawyer on the other side throw you a curve ball by
objecting to your pre-trial evidence discovery requests on the grounds
that the information you seek will not be admissible at trial.
It doesn't have to be admissible!
Mark my words and don't let the lawyer trick you into giving up!
If you spend much time fighting lawyers over the facts you need to win your case, sooner or later
they'll object to your discovery requests on the grounds that the information you're trying to get
is not "admissible" ... and you'll win the court's favorable decision if you remember what
Jurisdictionary teaches.
You have five (5) tools to discover evidence before trial.
1. Requests for Admissions
2. Requests for Production
3. Interrogatories
4. Depositions
5. Subpoenas and other Court Orders

Pre-trial evidence discovery is not bound by trial rules!

Once you get to trial (if you don't use Jurisdictionary to win your case before trial) every piece
of evidence you try to present to the court must be admissible evidence ... or the court will keep
it out.
During the pre-trial discovery phase of your case, however, the facts you seek do not have to be
admissible ... so long as they are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence that
will be admissible at trial ... (if you don't use Jurisdictionary to win your case before trial).
Check your local court rules and you will find this is true. You may have to teach the judge
what's-what, but the rules are clear. Facts you seek during pre-trial discovery do not have to be
admissible if they are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of facts that will be
admissible evidence when presented at trial.
Trap crooked lawyers in their own web of deceit.
Learn the rules and how to use them wisely to win your case!

The Lawyer's Little Red Toolbox ...

Every lawyer has a little red toolbox of tricks and traps intended to
throw you off track and put you at a disadvantage.
Today's "Tips & Tactics" gives you a glimpse into that toolbox. To
learn more, of course, get our complete Jurisdictionary 24-hour step-by-step self-help course.
Issues. Lawyers typically try to "muddy the waters" by trying to get you to argue issues that have
absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the case. If you aren't careful, they will drag you off
into a never-never land of expensive and time-consuming efforts to prove or disprove facts that
are "outside the pleadings", facts that were not raised by the pleadings and, therefore, do nothing
but drain your energy and gobble up your time so the other side can make it look like you are
struggling to prove your case. Don't put up with it. Make your record. "Objection, your Honor.
Counsel is raising issues beyond the scope of the pleadings!" (More about this in our 24-hour
self-help course.)
Sidebar. Lawyers will try to whisper to the judge on the bench (so the court reporter cannot
hear) communicating to the court about matters they would never be allowed to present if the
court reporter were taking everything down and you were in a position to object on the record.
When the lawyer on the other side of your case calls for a sidebar conference, make sure the
court reporter comes with you to the bench and types every word spoken by the judge, the other
lawyer, and yourself. Failure to do so has been the downfall of many. Don't let it happen to you!
Testifying. This is the biggest and most common crime and one of the many reasons people hate
lawyers. When a lawyer can't find a witness or documents or anything else to support their
arguments, they'll just tuck their thumbs under their armpits and strut about the courtroom stating
facts about which they have no personal knowledge whatever. And, if you let them get away with
it, you are inviting disaster. The only time a lawyer (or pro se litigant, for that matter) should be
allowed to talk about facts is when the facts recited are already in the record - either because a
witness testified to them or some documents or other things were presented to the court to
demonstrate those facts. Unless the lawyer has first-hand knowledge, he is an incompetent
witness. "Objection, your Honor. Counsel is testifying." If the lawyer claims to have first-hand
knowledge, move the court to make him or her submit to cross-examination under oath!
Empty Objections. Ever watch court programs on TV and hear the lawyers call out that familiar
word, "Objection", without saying anything more about why they are objecting? Of course you
have. Not many script writers are lawyers, so they assume that single word, without more, is
good enough. It's not! If the other side jumps up with an "Objection", you jump up immediately
and demand, "Grounds, your honor! What are the grounds?" Unless an objection is based on
proper grounds, it is improper for the court to sustain the objection. If you allow this trickery,
you only invite the other side to get away with murder.
Well, that's just a few of the things you'll learn with our fabulous, wildly popular, 24-hour stepby-step lawsuit self-help course. Get your own little red toolbox now at Jurisdictionary and
learn how to fight legal corruption in court and win!

The Lawyer's Little Red Toolbox ... #2

This week we offer a few more warning tips about the little red
toolbox of tricks and traps lawyers use to throw you off track and put
you at a disadvantage.
To learn more about protecting yourself from lawyers, get our complete Jurisdictionary 24-hour
step-by-step self-help course.
Conversational Style: Winning lawsuits requires you to use words precisely to get certain facts
(and only those facts) into the court's record. Lawyers will try to get witnesses (including you, if
you are called as a witness in court or at a deposition) to forget what's important and, instead of
concentrating only on the vital facts, get into a "conversation" with the lawyer. Never do it! The
lawyer wants to get things off track, to confuse the court with useless information, or to make the
court believe there is more to the case than there truly is. It's hard enough to win a case without
being required to argue about facts that can have no bearing on the outcome. Yet, that's just what
lawyers often do. When you are being questioned, answer as if you can see the words you say
being typed onto a page for the appellate court to read, if you have to appeal. Speak slowly.
Thoughtfully. Always count 1-2-3 before answering any question. Think about the answer and its
effect on the record. And teach your witnesses to do the same! (More about this in our 24-hour
self-help course.)
Court Reporters: There is nothing - absolutely nothing - more important than "making a
record" of everything that takes place in a court proceeding. When you go to court without a
court reporter to transcribe the proceedings, you open the door for the judge to do whatever he or
she feels like doing - because the judge knows that without a transcript record there can be no
appeal. Judges fear the record! Judges cannot be judged without one. We emphasize this in our
24-hour self-help course. NEVER go to a hearing or trial unless you are CERTAIN the
proceedings will be transcribed AND that you will be able to get a certified transcript if the judge
allows errors that hurt your case! If the lawyer on the other side assures you that a court reporter
has been hired, DO NOT TRUST HIM OR HER TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH. Ask to know
the name of the court reporter and MAKE CERTAIN they will attend. Otherwise, hire your own
court reporter! Remember: You don't always need a transcript, but if you need one and don't have
it, you're busted!
Citing Cases: More often than you might believe, lawyers cite cases without reading them! Lazy
lawyers typically read only the "headnotes" that are added by editorial staff, without taking time
to read the official opinions of the appellate court. Don't make this mistake! A few years ago
opposing counsel filed a memorandum citing more than three-dozen cases none of which applied
to the facts! If I hadn't taken time to read those cases to see what the appellate justices actually
said, the lawyers on the other side would have prevailed with their ruse! Never assume the judge
will read the cases cited by your opponent. Read the cases! Visit the following link to see the
highlighted headnotes of an important case. The highlighted "headnotes" are not official and do
not control the trial judge in any way! Read all your cases and all their cases, so you can argue
effectively and win your lawsuit!

www.Jurisdictionary.com/CFMail/Images/PatsyCase.pdf.
That's just a few of the things you'll learn with our wildly popular, 24-hour step-by-step lawsuit
self-help course. Get your own little red toolbox now with Jurisdictionary and learn how to
fight courtroom corruption and win!

The Lawyer's Little Red Toolbox ... #3

You sent so many emails thanking us for our "Little Red Toolbox"
series, we decided to send a few more warning tips again this week so
you can be prepared for the lawyers' little red toolbox of tricks and
traps they use to throw you off track and put you at a disadvantage.
To learn more about protecting yourself from lawyers, get our complete Jurisdictionary 24-hour
step-by-step self-help course.
We mailed it, your Honor: Occasionally, a lawyer will claim he mailed a motion, notice, or
other important paper to you, when in fact the paper never got mailed ... and the court will be
inclined to believe the lawyer! Believe me. It happens. What can you do? If the paper required
you to respond within a certain time frame, and you didn't get the paper, there may be harsh
penalties. What you must not do is try to take advantage of the situation and claim you should
not be required to respond because you didn't get the paper. If you do this, the court will surely
shoot you down. Instead, calmly assure the judge that you will be pleased to respond to the
paper, but you didn't get it. Perhaps the postal service lost it. They do, you know! Do not accuse
the lawyer of lying, even though he may be lying. It could also be his secretary forgot to mail the
paper or lost it. She will try to save her job by insisting that she mailed it. Any attempt on your
part to discredit the lawyer or his staff will only work against you. Instead, assure the judge that
you will happily respond to the paper you did not receive, and move the court for an order giving
you a certain amount of time to do so. Of course, it's always a good idea to cite controlling
appellate cases that favor court leniency in such matters. Then, if the judge refuses to give you
more time to respond, you are prepared for appeal. But, as you will learn in more detail with our
24-hour Jurisdictionary step-by-step self-help course, showing the judge you already have
appellate case law on your side encourages the judge to do what you ask, and the judge will
probably give you more time rather than risk being overturned on appeal.
We never received it, your Honor: Yes, this happens, too. At the very worst time possible, the
lawyer on the other side may claim he never received an important paper you sent to his office.
How do you deal with this? Simple. Never rely on mail alone. Even certified mail gets lost now
and then. Mail your papers, by all means, but follow-up with fax and, if the document is
particularly important, have it hand-delivered by a disinterested person who can give oath that
the paper was delivered on time and handed to a particular person in the lawyer's office. Print a
fax log after all faxes to opposing counsel, and staple the fax log to your copy of the document.
Pay the few extra pennies for delivery confirmation at the post office. Certainly, not all lawyers
are crooked, but enough are that you simply must anticipate that sooner or later they will show
up in court with the excuse that they never received what you sent. Mail with delivery
confirmation. Fax with fax log. Hand-deliver by someone reliable who can swear delivery was
made. By doing this you put a stop to the "We never received it" game that some lawyers think is
sport. More procedure for effectively controlling crooked lawyers is covered in detail with our
popular 24-hour step-by-step Jurisdictionary self-help course.
NOTICE: These weekly "Tips & Tactics" are no substitute for our complete 24-hour step-bystep self-help course. We send these to those who have our course already and need a weekly

reminder, and to those of you who need to take responsibility to get our course and learn how
to protect yourself in court!
Why risk losing?

How to Use Interrogatories ...

Interrogatories are written demands for information that force the
other side to provide facts you need to win your lawsuit, written
demands the other side must answer in writing ... under oath!
That's case-winning power ... if you know how to use it!
We can't teach you everything you need in these weekly Tips &
Tactics newsletters. We can only whet your appetite for more. There's
much more you need if you want to win! Learn it all in 24 hours with our Jurisdictionary stepby-step self-help course.
The Always Question: Here's an interrogatory I use every time. "Identify all persons having
first-hand knowledge of any fact relevant to the outcome of this case and, with respect to each
such person, state the facts known and whether you intend to call such person at trial."
You're sure to get, "Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks to inquire into the
attorney-client privilege," etceteras ad nauseum. That's ok. You'll then file a motion to compel
answers, and when you get to the hearing on your motion you'll explain to the judge why the
other side should be compelled to tell you the name, address, phone number, facts known, and so
forth. The judge will grant your motion, because you will support it with a memorandum citing
several controlling appellate court cases making clear that to deny this information is an
automatic reversal on appeal.
The Stupid Question: It never fails to amaze me how some lawyers tack on an interrogatory
asking the person answering to identify himself or herself. That person's signature will be
appended to the end of their response, and the notary will attest that the same person swore to the
answers. Every state and federal court limits the number of interrogatories you're allowed to use.
It makes no sense to ask for information you don't need. Use interrogatories only to get
information you need to win!

Making Courtroom Objections ... #2

If you want to win in court, you must learn how to make objections, and the time to learn is
before you go to court. If you don't, the other side will take
advantage of you, and the judge will be powerless to stop it ... if
you don't object.
Watch "Law & Order" and other courtroom dramas to hone your
objections skills. Watch with a friend. Compete to see who can
make proper objections first - you, your friend, or the actor on
screen.
See if you can state the legal grounds for your objections. Here
are a few of the common objections you'll learn how to use with
our affordable step-by-step lawsuit self-help course.

Asked and Answered

Badgering the Witness

Best Evidence Rule

Competence

Counsel is Testifying

Facts Not in Evidence

Hearsay

Outside the Pleadings

Prejudice

Qualifications

Relevance

Calls for Speculation

You'll be surprised how much damaging testimony is admitted on TV shows - damaging

evidence that would never be admitted if proper objections were made in time. When it's your
case, you can't afford to let the other side offer damaging testimony. Practicing your objections
with courtroom dramas on TV will prepare you for situations where your opponent will play
every dirty trick in the book to get facts into evidence that could destroy your case - facts you
must keep out with prompt and proper objections.
Watching courtroom dramas will help. Practice makes perfect.

Our Jurisdictionary step-by-step self-help course will show you what objections to make, when
to make them, and why you must make them to prevent crooked lawyers from offering damaging
testimony that will destroy your case.
Whether you order our affordable course or not, you must learn to make effective objections to
protect yourself and win your lawsuit.
Jurisdictionary makes lawsuit procedure so easy an 8th grader can learn it all in a single
weekend.
Overcome courtroom corruption using the rules of the court itself. Force judges to obey their
own rules and put a stop to the crooked games lawyers play to get damaging testimony into the
record.

Trial Rules v. Pre-Trial Discovery Rules ...

One of the dirty tricks dirty lawyers play on unwary litigants (who
don't know what we teach in our 24-hour Jurisdictionary step-by-step
self-help course) is objecting to your pre-trial discovery requests on
the grounds that the information you're trying to dig up will be
inadmissible at trial.
Doesn't matter!
During the pre-trial evidence discovery phase of litigation (all explained in our Jurisdictionary
course) you are entitled to any and all information that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence". What you seek doesn't have to be admissible at trial ... as long
as it is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence".
Memorize those words.
Get the official rule book for your jurisdiction. Read the general rule for pre-trial discovery.
In the federal rules it's Rule 26(b)(1).
The same (or nearly identical) language is included as part of the discovery rules that control
every state and federal court.
When you're taking depositions, sending out subpoenas, serving interrogatories, requesting
admissions, or requesting production, you are entitled to "discover" any information (not
privileged) that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence".
The facts you seek do not have to be admissible at trial, so long as they will help you discover
facts that will be admissible.
When the lawyer on the other side tries to play this dirty trick, in a dishonest effort to keep you
from getting to the truth, quote the official rule and demand your discovery rights!
It doesn't matter if the facts you seek during discovery will be admissible at trial!
Facts don't have to be admissible during discovery!
So long as what you seek is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence", then you have a right to get it, and the rules of court guarantee that right.

But, you must know how to compel discovery using motions to compel, motions to show cause,
and motions for contempt so you can have people jailed for not complying with the rules. Once
your opponent faces a jail term for contempt, he won't be so slow to respond to your discovery
requests! All explained in our course.
Once you master this process, you'll start getting results!
Until you know how to force the court put a stop to lawyers' tricks so you can discover the
evidence you need to win, however, you don't have a chance if you're up against a tricky lawyer!
Don't be a victim of courtroom corruption.
Learn how to WIN before trial ... with or without a lawyer!

Powerful Pro Se Pleadings ...

The missing piece in most pro se lawsuits is powerful
pleadings ... a mistake even seasoned lawyers frequently make.
Your lawsuit stands or falls on its pleadings ... the "Complaint" if
you're the plaintiff, the "Answer" if you're the defendant.
Then, of course, there are counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints and answers to
each of these, also. It's really quite simple the way Jurisdictionary explains it, but it's also
extremely important to get it right when starting out!
Whether you win or lose depends primarily on how well you write your pleadings ... i.e., the part
of your paperwork that states what your case is about, what you intend to prove, and what you
want the court to do if you prove all the facts you say you will prove.
It's amazing how many people (including seasoned lawyers) do very little to pump-up their
pleadings with persuasive power. Most of the pleadings you see are more like letters to the judge,
rather than effective statements of the litigants' right to formal redress of their grievances.
Pleadings should state the legal grounds for what you want the court to do, and they should state
the facts you intend to prove to show the court that you're entitled to the relief you seek.
That's what pleadings do!
Plaintiffs must state at least one "cause of action" plus all facts that support each cause. A cause
of action is the plaintiff's right to sue. Every cause of action requires that certain facts be proved.
The plaintiff's pleading, therefore, needs to state all the facts that he or she intends to prove ... all
of them and nothing more!
Defendants must file what we call affirmative defenses along with their Answer to the plaintiff's
Complaint. Affirmative defenses are something like causes of action. They are the legal grounds
the defendant is relying on to show the plaintiff should not win! Though professional lawyers
rarely go beyond just stating the affirmative defenses, wise defendants also allege all the facts
necessary to establish each affirmative defense. (Lawyers aren't taught how to do this in law
school, and the average judge hasn't a clue!)
Please don't treat pleadings as narrative "letters to the judge". It is extremely important to file
pleadings that show:

All the laws that dictate you should win, and

All the facts you intend to prove to trigger those laws.

Every law depends on certain facts, but unless the facts and the law (cause of action) are clearly
stated in your pleadings, your case starts off on a weak footing.
Why give the other side any help at all?
We can't teach you everything you need in these weekly Tips & Tactics newsletters.
There's much more you need to know if you want to win!
Get our 24-hour Jurisdictionary step-by-step self-help course.
Why risk losing?

What Good are Courts? ...

Too many judges seem biased. Too many lawyers seem willing to bend every rule and even
cheat to win. And, too many web-based amateurs offer "silver-bullet" methods that simply do not
work!
What can YOU do?
The first thing you must do is understand that (aside from the corruption we all see far too
often) our courts can be a good thing ... for those who know how to use the courts' power.
Think about it!
With a signed court order in your hands, you can command people to do things they do not wish
to do! You can make them pay you money. You can make them stop doing things you don't like,
or you can make them start doing things you want. All against their will. And, it doesn't matter
who those people are or how special and important they think they are. A court order is a very
powerful thing to have ... and easy to get if you know what Jurisdictionary makes so very easyto-understand.
If the order comes from a state court, it commands "each and several the Sheriffs of the state"
to do whatever the order says. It can command the Sheriffs to take someone into custody and
lock them in a jail cell. It can command the Sheriffs to seize the property of people who owe you
money. It can even command the Sheriffs to protect you from other government agencies!
If the order comes from a federal court, it directs the United States Marshal Service to carry
out its commands anywhere in the nation or the protectorates. In some instances, a federal court
order can even control people beyond our borders!
Very powerful stuff.
This Power Belongs to YOU!
No one knows better than Jurisdictionary how some judges are corrupt, some lawyers crooked,
and every opponent anxious to win!
That's why we created our popular How-to-Win-in-Court 24-hour step-by-step self-help course
for you ... so YOU can know the "what, why, how, when, and where" of lawsuit procedure and
evidence!

The very worst thing you can do is go to court with a chip on your shoulder! So what if the
judge is corrupt? So what if the lawyer on the other side is crooked? So what if your opponent is
hell-bent on winning? We urge you to go into every courthouse battle assuming those things
from the outset. The judge may be just. The lawyer on the other side may be honest and fair. But
your opponent will always be hell-bent on winning. So, it's always a good idea to assume the
very worst and enter the battle with the knowledge and tactical skill you need to win no matter
what the odds against you might be!
It does absolutely no good at all to complain that the other side isn't "playing fair" or that the
judge isn't "following the law". No. No. No!
Once you spend just 24 hours with our step-by-step self-help course you can march into court
with knowledge-power to control the judge and overcome crooked lawyers (even your own, if
you have one).
Our court "system" is a good thing. Some of the people who work in it aren't worth the dynamite
it would take to blow their nose ... but the "system" itself, i.e., the Rules of Procedure and the
Rules of Evidence are FAIR FOR EVERYONE!
IF, that is, you know how to use them.
Instead of complaining that the courts are corrupt, why not take responsibility to LEARN HOW
TO WIN in spite of the corruption and crookedness.
I learned how several years ago.
Now you can learn how, too!
The power of our courts is yours ... if you know how to use it.

More Courtroom Objections ...

"Calls for Speculation!"

When your opponent asks a witness, "What was the doctor

thinking?" or, "Was the victim frightened?", your response should
be immediate and forceful!
Jump to your feet and before your knees fully unfold exclaim:
"Objection! Calls for speculation!"
If it helps, bang the palm of your hand on the table as you rise to
your feet!
Don't put up with it ! ! !
To use this objection effectively you need to be on-your-toes. Questions like this come out of
nowhere, unexpectedly. Before you know it, the witness has told the court what someone else
was thinking or feeling ... contrary to the rules ... damaging your case unnecessarily!
The only person who can tell the court what someone was thinking or feeling is the person who
was doing the thinking or feeling ... not someone else!
"Objection. Calls for speculation!"
This can be the hardest objection to make, because clever lawyers will weave such questions into
a seemingly rountine line of examination in ways that may fail to arouse your suspicion. It isn't
right, but it happens. Frequently. This is the kind of thing they don't teach in law school.
You must listen attentively and be prepared to object before the testimony is uttered.
When the opposition asks a witness, "When did the driver first decide to turn down the unpaved
highway?" stand immediately to your feet and, even before you reach your full height, blurt out
quickly:
"Objection! Calls for speculation!"
The only way someone can say what you or anyone else might have been thinking at a particular
time is to speculate ... i.e., to guess. Guessing isn't evidence!

Opposing lawyers will sneak the question in on you when you are least likely to catch it. If you
aren't quick with objections, the witness will answer in ways you must prevent!
Witnesses should only be allowed to testify to what they feel, what they know, what they
themselves have personally witnessed or experienced.
The questions presented by your opponent will be cleverly phrased to catch you off guard.
Do you know all the objections to these questions?

When the doctor snapped off his rubber gloves angrily after the operation
and tossed them disgustingly into the trash, what was his attitude?
As you stood there by the side of the road, watching people gather to gaze in
wonder at that horrible, bloody carnage, what was the atmosphere?
At any time during the attack on the golf course that day, did you feel your
assailant was trying to prove a point by striking you with his 9-iron?

There are more than one objection to each of these!

Do you know the "grounds" for each of these objections? If you want to win, you must know not
only how to object in court but also know the "grounds" for each of your objections, or the court
will overrule your objection and let the improper testimony continue.
Failure to object effectively will be fatal to your case!
These "Tips & Tactics" newsletters are only the very tip of the iceberg of lawsuit knowledge you
need to win. If you don't already have our 24-hour step-by-step lawsuit self-help course, you
need to go to our website and order now!
Learn how to object effectively!

More Courtroom Objections ...

"Objection! Asked & Answered!"

If a lawyer attempts to unfairly emphasize a witness' testimony about a

particular fact by repeatedly asking questions that elicit the same answer,
object!
Don't let a lawyer keep asking repetitive questions that emphasize a fact
contrary to whats best for your case.
Stand to your feet at once and exclaim in a clear, controlled voice:
"Objection. Asked and answered."
Enough is enough!
The judge should sustain your objection if the repetition has been obvious. Attempts to overemphasize testimony about a particular fact by repeatedly asking the witness questions that elicit
the same or substantially similar answers will be stopped, if you object in a timely manner and
the judge is doing his job!
If you don't object, the lawyer will keep beating that dead horse until the facts are taken as true
no matter how unlikely the facts might be!
Drumming witnesses for redundant answers to emphasize a fact is one method crooked lawyers
use to unfairly influence the court!
Object!
Here's what to expect:

Lawyer asks witness, "What time was it?"

Witness answers, "Around supper time."

Lawyer asks, "So, it was nearly dark?"

"Nearly," the witness responds.

The light was fading? the lawyer drones on.

Decidedly, the witness answers.

"Would you say it was dusk?" the lawyer goes again.

"Yes, I would say so," the witness replies.

"So, the sun was going down?"

And here, if not sooner, you stand to your feet and speak up so everyone (especially the court
reporter) can hear, "Objection. Asked and answered!"
Learn more about objections in our 24-hour step-by-step self-help course! Failure to object
effectively can be fatal to your case!
Know all the possible objections you can use!
These "Tips & Tactics" newsletters are only the very tip of the iceberg of lawsuit knowledge you
need to win. If you don't already have our 24-hour step-by-step self-help course, go to our
website and order now!

Using On-Line Legal Research - Part I ...

How to Find the Law that Controls the Judge!
Last day to order our course for $219. Price will be $249 at midnight New Years Eve.
Office will close early. Order on-line at www.Jurisdictionary.com

You cannot win without controlling the judge, and you cannot control judges unless you research
and cite official legal authority for every point you seek to make on the court's record!
You must make it crystal clear that the judge will be reversed on appeal if he rules against you.
Otherwise, the judge is free to ignore everything you say and rule any way he pleases in spite of
what the law and facts may prove to the contrary, because he knows he will not be reversed on
appeal. The appeal process will not give you another bite at the proverbial apple. Either you
make your points with the trial judge, or you run the risk of losing your case and being stuck
with the decision!
Don't believe us? Go into court and tell the judge what your
personal opinions are about the law and how you think he should
rule in your case ... and see how far it gets you!
The only opinions that count in court are the written opinions of
higher level appellate courts who stand in judgment of the trial
level judge and have power to reverse him if he disagrees with
them in any way\.
Your opinions (no matter how clever or persuasive) count for nothing in court. You must show
the judge, by citing official legal authorities, exactly what will happen if he rules against you!
Clever argument is not enough.
Knowing the law is not enough.

Controlling the judge is what wins lawsuits!

You control judges by making clear on the record what the higher appellate level courts have
ruled in the past, what opinions those higher courts have passed down, and why the higher courts
will reverse the trial judge's orders if he enters orders that run contrary to what the appellate
courts require.
Watch video showing on-line research.
You must provide citations to official legal authority in your motions, memoranda, objections,
and verbal arguments at hearings and at trial (if you don't win before trial using the easy-to-learn
methods we teach in our affordable step-by-step Jurisdictionary course).
You must tell the judge why you should win - by citing official legal authorities the judge is
required to obey: court rules, constitutional provisions, statutes, codes, and most importantly the
opinions of the higher courts that clarify what those rules, constitutional provisions, statutes,
and codes really mean! What you think they mean doesn't count. How you choose to read and
interpret those things doesn't count. The only thing that counts is how higher courts read and
interpret them, and what they say those things mean in regard to the facts of your case.
The other side will cite legal authorities favoring his case.
You must do the same, if you want to win.
But, if you've wandered through a law library in search of legal authority, you were probably
amazed to find crowded shelves stuffed with volumes of similar-looking books differing only by
the mysterious numbers printed on their spines. Books that give no hint which one might hide the
key to unlock the judge's favor. In a well-stocked law library there will be thousands of books.
You cannot possibly read them all to find what you seek, and even the indexes, appendices, and
annotations are a complex nightmare that requires years of experience to master.
On the other hand, legal research with the internet is easy.
We show you how in our course.
Beware cheap on-line resources. They can't be trusted. Their databases are incomplete,
inaccurate, and seldom up-to-date. When shopping for on-line legal research, insist on sites that
keep their database current and provide access to all official resources necessary to win your
case.
Learn more about on-line legal research and how to cite official legal authorities in our 24-hour
step-by-step self-help course!
Know how to find and cite proper legal authorities.

These "Tips & Tactics" newsletters are only the very tip of the iceberg of lawsuit knowledge you
need to win. If you don't already have our 24-hour step-by-step self-help course, go to our
website and order now!
Learn how to research and cite ... so you can WIN!

The Burden ...

Understanding Who Must Do What

Everyone who demands judgment or claims any right whatever to

relief in court is required to prove he or she is entitled to judgment
or relief.
This requirement is called "the burden", and knowing how it works
can help you win your case in court.
Suppose your neighbor sues you for kicking his dog. He files his
complaint and demands judgment. To get from complaint to
judgment, however, he must meet his burden. He must prove you
kicked his dog.
You aren't required to prove you didn't.
The burden is on him. It's his case to prove!

Watch our video!

The burden of proof in court is always on the person asserting a claim, making a motion, or
demanding a right. Before the court can lawfully grant relief of any kind, the party seeking relief
must carry his burden to prove he's entitled to relief.

You may have heard someone say, "It's your word against his."
That is never true in court.
One side always has the burden.
The burden may shift back and forth during a complicated lawsuit, depending on who is claiming
what, however the burden is always on the side seeking relief, the party making a claim, the
litigant who is moving the court, the claimant who is alleging a fact, etc.
Lawyers may try to put you "on the defensive". They may try to trick you into trying to prove a
negative, e.g., that you didn't do something or that something did not happen. People who don't
have our Jurisdictionary course may go out of their way to show they were out of town that day
or they were confined to a wheelchair or even that they are devoted dog lovers. This is what the
plaintiff wants. If the defendant ignorantly tries to prove the dog-kicking did not take place, the
plaintiff will be spared the effort of working to prove it did take place.
Smarter defendants who know what Jurisdictionary teaches will move the court to take judicial
notice that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove whatever he claims by getting admissible
evidence into the court's record ... and, if the other side cannot get that evidence in,
Jurisdictionary students know how to move the court for summary judgment.
Put the ball in the court where it belongs.
Learn more about the burden of proof and how knowing who has the burden can help you win
your case. Get our "How to Win in Court" self-help course at Jurisdictionary

Interpreting Legal Statutes ...

How to Know What the Law Actually Says!

One of the biggest problems pro se litigants run into is mis-reading the law. If you
don't know what the law says, you'll have a hard time getting the courts to agree with
you. Understanding statutory interpretation is essential.
(Pro se litigants are people just like you, who either can't afford or don't trust lawyers and need
what Jurisdictionary teaches!)
Statutory language can be confusing. The words should be interpreted according to the rules of
statutory interpretation. The rules of statutory interpretation are vitally important for you to
learn ... if you want to win your lawsuit!
You need to know how courts interpret what Congress or your state legislature really meant
when they wrote the law! Too many of you assume you know what the law says, when the only
opinion that counts is what the courts say the law says. The best courts follow the rules of
statutory interpretation, and you need to learn these rules!
The paramount rule for interpreting statutes is that the words used by the legislature should be
given their "plain meaning". Courts should not play games with the legislature's words. If a
reasonable person would read the word "bicycle" to mean a two-wheeled engine-less vehicle
powered only by legs and feet, then courts should not interpret that word to include motorcycles.
The law should say what it means and mean nothing more. Words should be given a plain
meaning, according to the plain meaning rule.
But, what if the meaning is not plain?
By the rule of ejusdem generis (Latin: "of the same type"), courts should interpret general terms
at the end of specific lists as including only things of the same type as those specifically
mentioned in the list. For example, if a statute lists "oranges, grapefruit, lemons, and other fruit",
the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the phrase "other fruit" to mean other citrus fruit. Apples

and pears are not included. The courts are allowed to assume the legislature intended by "other
fruit" to include all the many types of citrus, kumquats, tangelos, limes, etc. When the legislature
lists items of similar kind and adds "and other", the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the word
"other" to include only items of the same type.
Simple enough?
Another rule of statutory interpretation is inclusio unius, exclusio alterius (Latin: include one,
exclude others). If a statute specifically refers to lemons (and does not mention limes or
grapefruit or "other fruit"), courts should obey this rule and not expand the legislative intent to
include limes and grapefruit. It is not the domain of our courts to expand what the legislature
says beyond what the legislature specifically says!

Watch our video!

To learn more about law, courts, and how to control judges and overcome crooked lawyers, you
need to order our Jurisdictionary self-help course at once and get your competitive edge before
it's too late!
Know how judges are supposed to read and interpret the law. Know the rules and how to force
everyone to play by the rules. Know how to draft proper pleadings, know how to get admissible
evidence into the court's record, know how to move the court to enter orders favorable to your
cause, and know how to use your Jurisdictionary legal knowledge to win in court!
Our self-help course is presented in such an easy format that an 8th grader can learn it all in just
24 hours!
Know what you need to win!
Know how to control the court!

Justice & Power ...

The Importance of Legal Knowledge

This week's Tips & Tactics includes a link to a video that contains a QUIZ for you to
test yourself on your knowledge of Justice & Power!
Click the link above.
When the video appears, click the start button in the lower left corner - the little right-pointing
wedge.
Watch the first minute or two, and then take the quiz.
Do YOU know American Justice?

Watch our other video, too!

To learn more about law, courts, how to control judges, and how to overcome crooked lawyers,
order our Jurisdictionary "How to Win in Court" self-help course at once and get your
competitive edge before it's too late!
Know how judges are supposed to read and interpret the law. Know the rules and how to force
everyone to play by the rules. Know how to draft proper pleadings, know how to get admissible

evidence into the court's record, know how to move the court to enter orders favorable to your
cause, and know how to use your Jurisdictionary legal knowledge to win in court!
Our self-help course is presented in such an easy format that an 8th grader can learn it all in just
24 hours!
Know what you need to win!
Know how to control the court!

Offers of Proof ...

Preserving Your Evidence for Appeal

If you start to present some testimony or other evidence and,

before you can get it before the court, the judge sustains the other
side's objection, you must move the court to allow you to make an
offer of proof.
The purpose of an offer of proof is to make clear on the record
what the evidence was or, we might say, what the evidence would
have been if the judge had allowed it to come in.
If the judge disallows your evidence, move the court for an order
allowing you to make an offer of proof.
"I move the court for an order allowing an offer of proof so I can make a record of the evidence
your Honor is excluding."
If you don't get your evidence in and you don't make an offer of proof to put your evidence on
the record, you'll have nothing to appeal if you lose your case, because the record will not show
what your evidence would have been.
If the judge denies your motion for an offer of proof, be sure to object again right then and there and again at the conclusion of the evidence - and again before judgment is rendered.
You cannot present evidence for the first time on appeal!
When your attempt to get evidence in is prevented by the court's sustaining the other side's
objection, immediately move the court for an order allowing you to make an offer of proof, so

you can make a record of what the evidence would have been, what you intended to prove by it,
and why the evidence should be admissible.
Then, if you lose and appeal must be taken to a higher court on the grounds that you were not
allowed to get your evidence in, you'll have a record to show the appellate court what the
evidence was (or would have been, if the judge had allowed it), and the appellate court can
decide if the lower court judge committed harmful error in disallowing your evidence. If the
appellate court finds your evidence should have been admitted, the appellate court will either
reverse or remand your case back to the trial judge for further proceedings that allow your
evidence to come in!
More about offers of proof and other essential tactics you must know if you want to win your
lawsuit are covered fully in our 24-hour step-by-step How to Win in Court self-help course.
Failure to make offers of proof can be fatal.
Learn how to protect yourself with Jurisdictionary
Our self-help course is presented in such an easy format that an 8th grader can learn it all in just
24 hours!

Why You Must Object in Court!

Lawsuits are nothing like a hockey game, where players' objections
may have little or no effect on the referee.
In hockey, if a player has a beef with the referree, he can complain until
he is blue in the face. In some cases, he'll be benched, and that will be
the end of it.
In a lawsuit, complaints are called "objections", and you cannot win
without them!
The other side will play every trick in the book to win. Expect it.
Lawyers are trained to push the limits, and many will intentionally break the rules to get what
they want. You must be on your toes at all times, anticipating that the other side will resort to
unfair tactics whenever possible.
Don't count on the judge to interfere! Most of the time he won't. Winning is entirely up to you!
Many lawyers are afraid to object. They don't want to get on the bad side of judges they must
appear before next week and the month after that. Don't make this mistake!
If you don't object, errors will be made, and you won't be permitted later to object for the first
time when you file an appeal after losing. Appeals are not another bite at the apple!
Unlike a referee who "calls 'em as he sees 'em", judges will remain silent when the other side
crosses the line. You may look up to see the judge fiddling with his laptop computer or staring
out the window. I caught one reading his newspaper during an important hearing.

It's your job to speak up and OBJECT!

"Objection!" stops the proceedings until the judge rules.
"Objection!" calls foul on the other side ... and sometimes calls foul on the judge!
Proper objections are essential to winning lawsuits.
You make a record of judges' errors by objecting and forcing judges to rule on our objections or,
if the judges refuse to rule, by objecting to that as well. Failure to object gives judges the
freedom to rule any way they want to rule ... and you cannot object for the first time on
appeal!
It makes no difference that you had the law on your side.
It makes no difference if Constitutional rights are violated.
It makes no difference if you are denied due process.
That may sound harsh, but that's the way it is!
Get used to it.
If you fail to make an appealable record with proper objections you give the judge a free hand to
rule any way he wants ... and corrupt judges will do just that!
Do what Jurisdictionary teaches! Plan every step to create a clear record for appeal. The judge
will see that ruling against you will result in his being successfully appealed. An embarrassing
outcome for him. His friends will talk about him behind his back. If he is appealed more often
than his peers, he'll get a reputation for being incompetent. If errors are severe, he'll be thought
of as a corrupt judge ... losing his standing in the community and possibly even being removed
from the bench in disgrace.
Objections get the judge's errors in the record.
No Objections = No Appeal
No Appeal = The Judge Can Rule Any Way He Pleases!
When in doubt - object!
That's how you win!
NOTICE: These weekly Tips & Tactics are only a tiny part of what you need to win in
court! If you don't know what we teach in our affordable step-by-step 24-hour self-help
course, you cannot possibly win in court!

An 8th grader can understand it all in 24 hours!

Learn what it takes to win the Jurisdictionary way!

Jurisdictionary shows you how to win without a lawyer!

Or, if you already have a lawyer, Jurisdictionary shows you how to reduce legal fees and make
your lawyer do what it takes to win your case!

How to Control Judges ... Legally!

Think about it!
When a judge sees you don't have a court reporter transcribing every word,
he (or she) has no fear of being appealed!
Without a written record to prove the judge made errors (and you made
timely objections) there's no way to win on appeal. In fact, without a written record, your appeal
will be denied as soon as it's filed!
No Record = No Appeal
"So?" you might be thinking, "Can't I win without appealling?"
Yes ... if you don't upset the court with awkward pleadings or obscure legal arguments. Or, if the
judge isn't corrupt or stupid or arrogant or all three (and the judge doesn't play golf on Tuesdays
with the lawyer for the other side).
In your courtroom battles there is no substitute for written words that can be used later,
if necessary, to prove what was said. Only words on paper can control the judge.
Words presented in court the Jurisdictionary way.
Jurisdictionary shows you how to use words to command the court and overcome legal
corruption ... words that win!
If the judge is in any way disposed to rule against you (and you haven't arranged in advance for
the proceedings to be recorded, either by bringing your own court reporter or arranging with the

court in advance to obtain a written transcript from the court's own recording) there is absolutely
nothing to stop the judge from ruling against you or even laughing in your face!
Experienced case-winning lawyers learn this early. Most pro se litigants and novice lawyers get
slam-dunked the first time and every time they appear in court where the judge has a personal
bias or rolled out of bed on the wrong side or just doesn't like the way you comb your hair!
No Record = No Appeal
If you cannot get a written record of the proceedings, the judge can do whatever he (or she)
wants with no fear of being appealed, and if the judge has no fear of being appealed, there is
abolutely nothing to guarantee you'll get justice!
Don't give the judge a free hand.
Learn how to make a winning record with our complete 2-day, step-by-step lawsuit self-help
course.
Learn how to use words correctly, effectively, and powerfully so you can win your lawsuit ...
with or without a lawyer!
Learning isn't expensive. You can grasp the essential concepts in less than 24 hours with our
affordable step-by-step course!
Jurisdictionary makes it easy for you to make a winning record using words that count ... words
that control the court ... words that stop the other side's dirty tricks ... words that give you an
edge!
Win your lawsuit ... with or without a lawyer.