Okay, I've devoted as much of my credit time as I'm going to give up for this thing. I'll just wait for the transcripts to come out. So I'm done with case 09-cv-2202: BAKEIR v. CAPITAL CITY MORTGAGE CORPORATION et al. It began yesterday at 2PM and went on for most of this morning and looks like it may go on some more.
Why? The plantiff is a very arguementative woman. If I a dollar for every time the judge had to say something along the lines of, please listen to the question and answer the question, I could buy lunch. Not at the Source but over at Subway, and not just the $5 footlong. You see Ms. Bakier, the plantiff, was representing herself and I'm sure if she had counsel, he or she would have told her on several ocassions to STFU. Judge Walton is very tolerant man and really tried to gently remind her of real court-roomy things, like the defendant lawyer has the right to question her.
Does snark make you feel violated and dirty? Snark is a form of communication in my household, which tends to get met with counter-snark. For Ms. Bakeir it seems to make her feel like a vicitim, when she bothers to listen to it. The defense lawyer was being a wee bit snarky when he pointed out how nice and organized his exhibits were (Ms. Bakeir's was not as organized thus causing some delays yesterday). She said when getting legitimate questions tinged with low level snark about organization, that she felt "violated" and "dirty". She repeated the whole violated thing again later, but the lawyer was being quite professional.
Prior to being cross examined, she submitted into evidence a tape, that I'm going to guess was taped without the knowledge of the other person. Now then why did she get so angry when discovering Martin taping her?The other person on the tape is a Mr. Nash of Capital City Mortgage. Mr. Nash, sadly now is dead, and a lot of what she is suing for relies on dealings between her and Mr. Nash. Anyway on the tape, it is mostly her. Bakier talking, Bakier argueing, and Bakier shouting Mr. Nash down. The poor dead man comparatively doesn't say a whole lot. However he did lose his cool (jeez who wouldn't) and asked if she was calling him a liar.
She was no good at answering questions. I'm guessing her normal arguing style is to talk over the other person, narrate her POV, and go on and on, if the evidence and her performance yesterday, today and back at the BCIB hearing is anything to go by. Oh, and not listen.
Does she have a case? Not really. She doesn't really prove very well where the money went that was loaned to her. And Capital City pretty much were in the right not to loan more money to her when she didn't have anything to show for what was done to 509 O St after the first draw. She blames Capital City for the vacant and blight taxes because she blames them for delaying her because they wouldn't give her more money.
Ms. Bakier probably bit off more than she could chew when taking on 509 O St and there were too many inefficiencies (and possible disorganization) in how she went about it and she got over her head. The best thing for all is probably to force a sale of the 2 unit property and let some more savvy contractor/developer with deep pockets and experience have a go at it.