Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Fighting A Foreclosure

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... I think that s their goal every time! ... What a coincidence! All they have here too is substitutes for judges! ... And, your standing as a party is??
    Message 1 of 36 , Apr 2 10:27 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      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 as
      > making a special appearacne for the sole purpose of challenging
      > subject matter and venue jurisdiction, as well as no licensed
      > lawyer for the plaintiff.

      And, your standing as a party is?? Did you speak in a case that was
      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 but
      > did not respond to the case.

      This sounds like they might be relying upon some local statute providing
      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
      cannot say.

      > I interrupted and said this individual has no right to be
      > speaking, he has no license, and I am here to address subject
      > matter jurisdiction and lack of a proper party.

      I prefer questions in such a case, and not to be Socratic either!

      "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.
      >
      > Granted what? I am here to deal with a special appreance.

      It sounds like the docket might have defined the hearing as a motion for
      summary judgment, and so the "granted" would apply to the thing applied
      for.

      > "Take it up with the other judge. You have 30 days to file
      > 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.

      There MIGHT be enough evidence available to make a convincing case if it
      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
      judgment?

      > 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 complaint
      > within 30 days. No appearance was required or stipulated.

      Again, are there specified forms of response, whereby they might ignore
      all others not in conformance to the specified forms?

      > Then
      > 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?

      Waiting is never good, anytime, if you ask me.

      > Is this where I issue a writ of mandamus to the appellate court
      > to get the original judge to address my response, supported by
      > affidavit, and affidavit not rebutted?

      Here, I would apply to the appellate court for the writ, and they would
      issue it to the judge. Here, the application contains the affidavit.

      > At the moment, I am lost on this, and so prepared to fight the
      > lender otherwise.

      You admit something was lent??

      > By motioning a response, I would be getting into jurisdicition
      > without my reposnse being addressed.
      >
      > Ideas?

      I avoid motions and prefer demands for rights. One cannot demand
      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.

      Regards,

      FF
    • mn_chicago
      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
      Message 36 of 36 , May 16, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        the denial.

        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.


        mn
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.