Defendant's attorney filed TMO with objections to every single exhibit, every single witness of mine. Judge granted with amendments as follows : that the matter is governed by CRCP 16.1 and therefore does not require a TMO. He went on to state that "The TMO is not binding on further proceedings in this case."
Can someone explain exactly what he meant? I am hoping this helps me as I am pro se and defendant's attorney has gone overboard by trying to ruin my entire case by excessive multiple objections to every item and witness, no holds barred. This is a simple debt collection case.
Thanks in advance.
Under a standard district court case the court must approve a TMO and that order is binding for trial procedure. In this case, that does not apply so all those objections and the like don't matter. You can still attempt to introduce all of those at trial.
I would strongly recommend that you hire an attorney to at least help you on procedures and, in particular, evidence as there are complicated foundation, hearsay, and any number of procedure and evidence rules that will seriously impact your case if you do not know and handle those well.
This answer is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice regarding your question and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.