How my trial went

My trial went horribly wrong. I had a 75 year-old lady judge who appeared very friendly with all the cases ahead of mine. She was not a judge for our county but was sitting in for one of our elected Judges. When she got to my case she asked the attorney for LVNV to hand her a copy of the complaint because she had trouble using the computer system and finding what she needed. From that point on she tried the case for the Plaintiff. I asked as she looked through the documents LVMV filed with the law suit and I finally asked, is there a particular time I can object to any of this? So she let me oblect to the affadavit,I said Objection, hearsay. The affiant is not from the original creditor and lacks personal knowledge of the account or its creation. Under Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc. and Rule 3-306(d), affidavits must be based on properly authenticated business records. As I said the case Bartlett...the attorney stood up and said that the defendant already argued this in his motion to dismiss and it was denied. Apparently I spoke of a case that if she considered would render all of the documents inadmissible because he made certain that she did not hear me. She then tried to find my Motion to dismiss and could not locate it in the computer so the Clerk had to print her a copy. As she tried to read it to reconsider it the lawyer ket talking to her so she was distracted. She finally told him to be quiet so she could read my motion. I thought that was good for me that she snapped at him. After she read it she said I was not allowed to file a Motion to Dismiss in Small Claims Court in Maryland. I later learned that I absolutely have a right to do so. She was wrong on that basic Maryland Rule. SHe did not let the attorney try the case, but instead asked me questions. She asked if this credit card was my account, I said I can only see the last four numbers so I could only speculate one way or the other. She asked the attorney do you have the full account number to show to the Defendant, he said no that have to be redacted since it personel information. She then said to me no, what happened was you had a credit card and you stopped paying for it and now these people own the debt and are here to collect it. I stated to her that Resurgent sent me an invoice and I asked for validation and a complete accounting of how the arrive at this amount and they only sent me a copy of a statement and considered it validation. I sent a second letter and did not recive one back. I asked the Judge if I could approach and the Bailiff screamed at me angrilly, "No, you cannot approach the bench." I said wow, this is what my taxes pay for, to be treated like shit. So I handed him the letters with the green card recipts to hand to the judge, She asked if I had a copy for the attorney and I said I gave a copy before trial when he begged me to settle before trial. She said that is good, lawyers don't do that half of the time. She then said these people do thousands of these cases they cannot provide you with everything. I restated that their witness works for LVNV, they have no personal knowledge of how these documents originated, when they originated, or how they were stored or transfered. She said like I said they do thousands of cases and they are not going to drag someone in here from the original creditor to testify, when all I really needed was an affadavit from the original creditor, not a live witness. I was not allowed to talk any further and she ruled in the favor of the Plaintif. I am now putting together a request for a new trial but in Maryland, the original Judge has to grant that so I doubt that will happen. After she denies the new trial I will appeal to Circuit Court where maybe a judge will follow the rules of evidence, consider case law from Maryland that requires the affadavit be from the original creditor and the Bills of Sale to be certified as accurate, and any documents that prove that they own the debt, and follow proper judicial procedure. SInce Maryland has a list of items that a debt buyer has to provide to sue under the business exception rule, and they provided it, that is why she ruled in favor of the Plaintif I was really sad and angry at the same time. The attorney and she talked like they were old friends as I gathered my belongings to leave the court room.