RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Fighting A Foreclosure
- mn_chicago [mailto:mn_chicago@...] wrote:
> I have no idea what just happened!I think that's their goal every time!
> A substitute judge was in attendance.What a coincidence! All they have here too is substitutes for judges!
> I introduced myself asAnd, your standing as a party is?? Did you speak in a case that was
> making a special appearacne for the sole purpose of challenging
> subject matter and venue jurisdiction, as well as no licensed
> lawyer for the plaintiff.
called by name, or were you making your appearance after all the other
docketed matters in which the court HAD jurisdiction were dealt with? I
personally would have chosen to only appear by way of paper, and not
necessarily the types they expect or prefer.
> The "lawyer" rambled on how I submitted different things butThis sounds like they might be relying upon some local statute providing
> did not respond to the case.
specific forms of acceptable response, where the one responding must
conform his response both to fulfill his own requirements, but also the
requirements of the local forum. Not knowing Illinois law myself, I
> I interrupted and said this individual has no right to beI prefer questions in such a case, and not to be Socratic either!
> speaking, he has no license, and I am here to address subject
> matter jurisdiction and lack of a proper party.
"What right does this individual have to be speaking?"
"Does this court permit the unlicensed practice of law?"
"What proper party, or licensed attorney with power of attorney has
proven subject matter jurisdiction to this court?"
"Is this court aware of the current ramifications of the use of the
terms "money" and "payment", in relation to the current status of what
is commonly called HJR192?"
> "Granted." said the judge.It sounds like the docket might have defined the hearing as a motion for
> Granted what? I am here to deal with a special appreance.
summary judgment, and so the "granted" would apply to the thing applied
> "Take it up with the other judge. You have 30 days to fileThere MIGHT be enough evidence available to make a convincing case if it
> a motion. I suggest you get an attorney."
> Why would I do that! This has been the first opportunity to address
> the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
were to be unrebutted, such as files of past mail correspondences,
checks, etc. He's probably advising you to get an attorney who
specializes in local practice. I wonder what motion he's referring
to...? It sounds like if it were California I could go look it up in
the codes. What similar written material exists for Illinois?
> "You have 30 days to take it up with the other judge."Here, 30 days is the time for filing a notice of appeal, but is appeal
available when the defense didn't defend against a motion for summary
> I walked out.Did it look like surrender, or escape, on your part?
> The judge would not address SMJ. I protested to no avail.Maybe the paper record had nothing in it to stop him, and he was
"covered'. See, often they do the wrong thing because they know you
have a remedy when they do. Will you take it is the question. I wish
this was in California!
> I have no clue what I did wrong. I responded to the complaintAgain, are there specified forms of response, whereby they might ignore
> within 30 days. No appearance was required or stipulated.
all others not in conformance to the specified forms?
> ThenWaiting is never good, anytime, if you ask me.
> a service for summary judgment, and now summary judgment.
> Was it my duty to summon the court for a special appearance
> to object, instead of waiting?
> Is this where I issue a writ of mandamus to the appellate courtHere, I would apply to the appellate court for the writ, and they would
> to get the original judge to address my response, supported by
> affidavit, and affidavit not rebutted?
issue it to the judge. Here, the application contains the affidavit.
> At the moment, I am lost on this, and so prepared to fight theYou admit something was lent??
> lender otherwise.
> By motioning a response, I would be getting into jurisdicitionI avoid motions and prefer demands for rights. One cannot demand
> without my reposnse being addressed.
privileges without looking the fool.
> Not so cheery!I still want to know, after they get their judgment, WHAT will the judge
require as payment? He'll probably take the property and try to equate
it to some IMAGINARY NUMBERS of something that never existed. I would
object strenuously to any numbers presented by anyone.
- Wednesday 17 May 2007
Lions 2 Christion nil
Just got word that the Illinois supreme court
has denied my writ of prohibition. Like the
appellate court, no reason is ever given for
This will certainly embolden the judge who ignored
my challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.
Moderator/Bear: Not necessarily. Just because they denied it doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't make a phone call. You need a better way to get his attention. Try filing a criminal complaint against him straight into the same case.