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

Fighting a foreclosure

Expand Messages
  • Moisha Pippik
    ... due process. Once challenged, it must be proven. ... you have not exhausted your administrative remedies? Maybe the lower court has not lost it s plenary
    Message 1 of 15 , May 17, 2007
      > Refusing to have a hearing on the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is a denial of
      due process. Once challenged, it must be proven.
      >
      > What was the reason for the denial? Perhaps due to the fact that
      you have not exhausted your administrative remedies? Maybe the lower
      court has not lost it's plenary power? You must wear them down,
      before they wear you down. Make this cost them more than it costs
      you. And by the way, never hurts to file a lien for betterment
      against the property for whatever you are doing while in the
      property. You have rights as well to the property, don't you?
      >
      > Moisha
      >
      > mn_chicago wrote:
      > 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


      You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
      in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
    • Frog Farmer
      ... I remember giving the magic mantra: Formal Docketed Administrative Hearing On The Record . That phrase has scared lot of bureaucrats around here. ... My
      Message 2 of 15 , May 17, 2007
        Moisha Pippik [mailto:moishanb@...] wrote:

        > What was the reason for the denial? Perhaps due to the fact that
        > you have not exhausted your administrative remedies?

        I remember giving the magic mantra: "Formal Docketed Administrative
        Hearing On The Record". That phrase has scared lot of bureaucrats
        around here.

        > Make this cost them more than it costs you.

        My first case, over a $14 dog license, cost them over $5K. It cost me
        the time to type everything plus make the appearances, but less than ten
        rolls of quarters. It was a great education for the time and expenses.
        And it laid the groundwork for future confrontations, in that they knew
        I would not roll over for them.

        Regards,

        FF
      • mn_chicago
        Tuesday 12 June 2007 A victory, of sorts. In court this morning, the judge, in a judicial proceeding, vacted the summary judgment against me, granting 7 days
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 12, 2007
          Tuesday 12 June 2007

          A victory, of sorts.

          In court this morning, the judge, in a judicial
          proceeding, vacted the summary judgment against
          me, granting 7 days for the opposition to amend
          its summary judgment, and 28 days for me to
          respond.

          I was cautioned that the issue of proof of license
          was a non-starter and my time would be better
          spent on the other issues.

          A copy of the note and assignment of the mortgage
          was given to me for the first time.

          The fight goes on!

          Cheers!

          mn
        • mn_chicago
          In brief, the lender filed a complaint using only a mortgage with no note. In Illinois, no note = no debt = no case. Judge gave lender attorneys a second
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 25, 2007
            In brief, the "lender" filed a complaint using only
            a mortgage with no note. In Illinois, no note =
            no debt = no case.

            Judge gave "lender" attorneys a second opportunity
            to present their summary judgment against me, and
            for the first time, gave me a copy of the note.

            I received the amended summary judgment, a rehash of
            what was said the first time, in essence, but
            including a copy of the note.

            It also states that the mortgage has since been given
            back to the original lender.

            What occurs to me is that the original complaint has
            never been amended, only the summary judgment, as
            mentioned.

            With no amended original complaint, and now that it is
            admitted that the only evidence in the complaint, the
            mortgage, has been reassigned back and now out of the
            hands of the plaintiff against me, where is the basis
            for continuing the suit?

            Is it not true that the sole basis for pursuing the
            matter lies in the complaint and not a summary judgment,
            thus voiding the matter, as I see it.

            I presented the statute under which the complaint was
            filed, pointing out no note means no debt, and the case
            should be dismissed because a failure of upholding any
            aspect of the statute means the effort fails. The lack
            of a note was the "lender's" failure to comply with the
            statute.

            Now, in equity, the judge can do anything, despite
            whatever logic we may want to impose in observation(s)
            about what "should" happen.

            I try to keep things as simple as possible, but wonder if
            my take precludes me from other possibilities.

            I have three weeks to respond to the summary judgment.
            Maybe I am not looking enough at deflecting the response
            to the summary judgment and may trap myself.

            That is how this is developing.

            mn



            I also asked the judge if she followed and adhered to the
            judicial canons. "This is not part of the case. We are
            done here. Yes, I do."

            Well, the preamble to canons say the judge shall uphold
            th constitution. "...Yes, I do."

            Thank you, judge.
          • Pro Se
            Demand & ask for the ORIGINAL WET INK SIGNATURE document COPIES can be altered, if they can t produce it....THEY HAVE NO STANDING ... Looking for a deal? Find
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 25, 2007
              Demand & ask for the
              ORIGINAL WET INK SIGNATURE
              document
              COPIES can be altered,
              if they can't produce it....THEY HAVE NO STANDING


              Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
            • mn_chicago
              Someone sent me a private message which I inadvertently erased in my bulk account. Please resend. Thank you. mn
              Message 6 of 15 , Jun 25, 2007
                Someone sent me a private message which I
                inadvertently erased in my bulk account.

                Please resend.

                Thank you.

                mn
              • one
                It seems if the plaintiff no longer has all the evidence of cause of action in its possession, it has lost standing.
                Message 7 of 15 , Jun 26, 2007
                  It seems if the plaintiff no longer has all the evidence of cause of
                  action in its possession, it has lost standing.
                • Michael Noonan
                  ... That is my thought, as well. I am focusing on the fct that the original complaint was never amended, only the summary judgment. Now that the plaintiff
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jun 28, 2007
                    --- one <jm367@...> wrote:

                    > It seems if the plaintiff no longer has all the
                    > evidence of cause of
                    > action in its possession, it has lost standing.


                    That is my thought, as well. I am focusing on the
                    fct that the original complaint was never amended,
                    only the summary judgment. Now that the plaintiff
                    admits the mmortgage went back to the original
                    lender, the complaint has lost its only "evidence."

                    Yes, I was handed a copy of the note, and then note
                    was mentioned in the amended summary judgment, a
                    summary judgment is not a complaint.

                    I also plan on going back to the matter of subject
                    matter jurisdiction as a challenge.

                    Thanks,

                    mn




                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                    Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
                    http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
                  • mn_chicago
                    Wednesday 4 July 2007 [There is a lot of information below, but it all has substance as I pursued the alleged original lender to prove it loaned anything to
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 4, 2007
                      Wednesday 4 July 2007

                      [There is a lot of information below, but it all has
                      substance as I pursued the alleged original lender to
                      prove it loaned anything to me.]

                      Yesterday, I received a motion for substitution of parties.

                      The plaintiff has bowed out in favor of the "original
                      lender" who was assigned the mortgage and note back to it.

                      Illinois statutes allow for substitution of parties for
                      any reason.

                      Has anyone had experience with subtitution that requires
                      one to show up for what seems a perfunctory procedure? I
                      thought about going to object on the basis that the
                      original plaintiff never had to prove the holder in due
                      course status it claimed, for it never presented anything
                      that was verified, nor was a note ever a part of the
                      complaint.

                      Two months ago, I began working as an independent contractor,
                      and my hours start at 4 a.m., and I do not get home much
                      before 6 or 7 p.m., so my time availability is quite limited.
                      If my presence is not really required or needed, I prefer to
                      not show up and focus on the main fight.

                      Also, the plaintiff responded to my request to admit questions
                      allowed per supreme court rule and objected to each question
                      on the basis that "Matters in the dispute have been resolved
                      as a judgment of foreclosure was entered in favor of plaintiff.
                      The request is not in proper form as it poses a question and
                      not a statement of fact or request for admission of
                      genuinesness of a specific document."

                      Well, the summary judgment was not accepted by the judge who
                      was not the one who "granted" it.

                      The "original lender," soon to be the substitute plaintiff
                      has received a slew of challenges from me from the onset
                      of the alleged mortgage and note over a 5 month period.


                      This is what I have done with the "original lender soon to
                      be plaintiff:"

                      To the president of the "original lender," I sent:

                      * NOTICE OF ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE, with a
                      supporting affidavit, followed up by a protest of dishonor
                      through a notary, recognized as an offcer in the state of
                      Illinois and recognized by the Law of Nations.

                      *Notice for Verification per UCC 3-505.4 requiring

                      a. Exhibition of original note

                      b. reasonable idetification of the person making
                      presentment and evidence of authority to make it

                      c. That the original instruments be produced for
                      acceptance of payment at any place reasonable.

                      wherein I stated that the allged lender is not the
                      holder in due course and may have breached the agreement,
                      AND that I was the original lender.

                      Notarial Notice of Dishonor.

                      No response.

                      ---

                      To the Senior Department Manager:

                      *NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE, to include
                      over 50 questions demanding very specific answers to
                      questions about the account procedures for the entire
                      transaction.

                      *NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST COLLECTION
                      ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO VALIDATION OF PURPORTED DEBT
                      with over 40 specific request for answers.

                      Notarial Notice of Dishonor.

                      No response

                      ---

                      To the Director of Internal Audit:

                      *NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF ORIGINAL NOTE

                      *NOTICE of ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE

                      *DEMAND FOR RETURN OF DEPOSIT OF MY PROMISSORY NOTE

                      Notarial Notice of Dishonor.

                      No response.

                      ---

                      To the Director of Operations:

                      *NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF ORIGINAL NOTE

                      *NOTICE OF ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE,
                      including many specific questions about the loan,
                      accounting procedures, return of deposit of promissory
                      note, etc.

                      Notarial Notice of Dishonor.

                      No response.

                      ---

                      To the Vice President:

                      *NOTICE AND DEMAND to send a closing statement to
                      discharge the aleged debt, with my offer to discharge
                      the alleged loan in cash, provided that the original,
                      unaltered promissory note be presented at time of
                      payment

                      *NOTICE AND DEMAND to respond to my assertion that
                      "lender" has violated all the elements of the loan
                      agreement, thus breaching the agreement.

                      *NOTICE AND DEMAND for proof that "lender" used its
                      own source of funds, along with a request and
                      confirmation of terms and cnditions of the original note.

                      *Notarial Notice of Dishonor

                      No response.

                      ---

                      Note that my demands included between 30 to 50 very
                      specific questions, each Notice accompanied by an
                      affidavit.

                      In one of the affidavits, I stated that I was the actual
                      lender and holder in due course, and I gave the "lender"
                      ten days to refute.

                      No response.

                      ---

                      It would seem that I should be able to use all of these
                      unanswered Notice and Demands for specific answers, along
                      with unrebutted affidavits against the "lender" as it
                      becomes the new plaintiff.

                      Feedback is appreciated.


                      Thanks,

                      mn
                    • mn_chicago
                      Saturday 7 July 2007 I decided to go to court to object to a substitution of plaintiff on grounds that first alleged plaintiff has not proven itself as holder
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 7, 2007
                        Saturday 7 July 2007

                        I decided to go to court to object to a substitution
                        of plaintiff on grounds that first alleged plaintiff
                        has not proven itself as holder in due course as is
                        claimed. and cannot meet the statutory requirements
                        as filed in the original, unchanged complaint.

                        It occurred to me, after my momentary "panic" of how
                        to proceed procedurually, that nothing is perfunctory
                        or innocuous from the opposition. I also realized I
                        would be waiving rights by allowing the switch to go
                        unopposed.

                        It also presents me the opportunity to renew my
                        objection to subject matter jurisdiction, as well, as
                        not being proven on the record, despite the judge's
                        say so, which is insufficient in law.

                        The judge is working me by ignoring my demands and
                        "focusing" on one issue. I need to learn to be more
                        forceful in objecting to everything...a lesson for
                        anyone else going in front of a judge to be prepared
                        to be objectionable, as it were, and assert one's
                        position.

                        It was suggested that I file a copy of all my Notice
                        and Demands to original alleged lender, soon to be new
                        plaintiff. I will also look up to see if estoppel
                        applies to any of my ignored Notice and Demands, with
                        affidavits. U S v Twill comes to mind again.

                        Cheers!

                        mn
                      • mn_chicago
                        While U s v Twill came to mind, it is actually: U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977) I stand corrected. mn
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jul 7, 2007
                          While U s v Twill came to mind, it is actually:

                          U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977)

                          I stand corrected.

                          mn
                        • mn_chicago
                          Monday 9 July 2007 It was wrong of me to vascillate and wonder if I should go to court for what seemed like a perfuntory procedure, a substitution of parties.
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jul 9, 2007
                            Monday 9 July 2007

                            It was wrong of me to vascillate and wonder if I should
                            go to court for what seemed like a perfuntory procedure,
                            a substitution of parties. I went this morning.


                            The complaint to foreclose was filed on 19 January 2007.

                            The alleged plaintiff filed using only the mortgage as
                            "evidence" to foreclose....no note was filed.

                            In preparing for this morning's session, I reviewed the
                            assignment of mortgages which I just received a few days
                            ago in the plaintiff's amended summary judgment.

                            The first assignment was the mortgage from MERS to the
                            plaintiff. It is dated 1 February 2007, 22 days AFTER
                            the complaint was filed.

                            So the plaintiff did not have the mortgage under which it
                            filed properly assigned to it until after filing the
                            complaint.

                            The second exhibit was the plaintiff assigning the mortgage
                            and note back to the original alleged lender. That assignment
                            is dated 15 June 2007, four days before the amended summary
                            judgment.

                            BUT, in reading the last paragraph of that assignment, it
                            states that the assignment of the mortgage and noted was in
                            effect ON OR BEFORE 10 JANUARY 2007!

                            In the first instance, the plaintiff was not assigned the
                            mortgage until AFTER it filed the complaint.

                            In the second instance, the plaintiff assigned the note
                            and mortgage to another "lender" by 10 January 2007, nine
                            days before it filed the complaint, and 21 days before it
                            was assigned the mortgage!

                            The first words out of my mouth to the judge were to demand an
                            immediate dismissal of the case for lack of proper standing
                            and fraud upon the court.

                            I stated I have an unrebutted affidavit on record that there
                            was no proper party plaintiff, and no fact evidence on the
                            record.

                            The judge noted my objection, but allowed the substitution
                            of parties because that was the motion to be heard. My
                            demand for immediate dismissal would be appropriate for my
                            response to the summary judgment, she said.

                            I asked, could I not object to allowing the substitution
                            because of faulty assignments?, and she said no.
                            [That was my effort to ask questions, per FF]. I could
                            take that issue up in my response to the amended summary
                            judgment.

                            Now I have a month to respond, and the new plaintiff gets
                            14 days to respond back, and then back to court in late
                            August.

                            ---

                            I had just read a case cite the previous Saturday that I
                            thought was appropriate but did not write it down at the
                            time. I immediately went to the library on the next floor
                            and there it was:

                            "A court should of its own volition, and without any motion
                            dismiss a suit at any time when its attention is called to
                            the fact that such suit is being prosecuted without proper
                            authority." Town of Kankakee v K & I RR CO, 115 Ill 88

                            Some of you may be able to learn from my mistakes and see
                            what to expect when in a courtroom situation.

                            One thing is apparent: I am making headway. The summary
                            judgment against me by a substitute judge was vacated, and
                            I have the opportunity to shoot down the plaintiff in a few
                            ways that violate the statutes under which it files, and
                            now, the improper order of assignments.

                            Cheers!

                            mn

                            Moderator/Bear: I would put that authority from Kankakee into a "renewed" demand to dismiss in writing and file it pronto. Try to make the word "should" stand out. Maybe you could make "should" stand out by way of related cases that put emphasis on what the court is supposed to do. You should be able to find some related authority that you should not have to expend resources to defend a suit brought without authority. Include your new exhibits regarding the history of assignments with a discussion in the motion about why they are relevant. Put in a separate motion to hold the plaintiffs in contempt of court for the fraud on the court. Also, look into a separate motion for Rule 11 sanctions as the suit is not warranted if they had made a reasonable investigation into the law and the facts entitling you to sanctions.
                          • mn_chicago
                            Sunday 23 December 2007 An update on my efforts to ward off a foreclosure judgment, now in the appellate court. A few weeks ago, I was Noticed by a new firm
                            Message 13 of 15 , Dec 23, 2007
                              Sunday 23 December 2007

                              An update on my efforts to ward off a foreclosure
                              judgment, now in the appellate court.

                              A few weeks ago, I was Noticed by a new firm that
                              it was taking over the case. Guess the "lender"
                              recognized that the local foreclosure-mill firm was
                              out of their league beyond the routine, so they
                              stepped it up a few notches to a firm with offices
                              around the country.

                              This time, I am fighting back from the onset by
                              sending out a subpeona ducus tecum to the two that
                              claim to be licensed to practice law in Illinois.
                              Because a notice was mentioned as being sent to
                              the initial "attorney" this new firm is replacing,
                              I sent a subpoena to him, as well, (I figure, they
                              opened the door for it), demanding that they all
                              produce a license to practice law, with the oath
                              of office certified and inscribed on the license,
                              as prescibed by law, and that the firm they are with
                              is also in compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rules.

                              Now lets see how the judge tries to deal with this
                              approach.

                              Cheers,

                              mn


                              Let me add, while preparing my appeal for a guilty
                              verdict on a moving traffic violation, I noticed
                              that my reasoning for having that judgment dismissed
                              also applied to the foreclosure appeal.

                              Making objections is key for any appeal, (and I am
                              on the record for making them), for without
                              objections on the record, the reviewing court has
                              nothing to review...

                              ...unless one can bring in the plain error doctrine
                              where the judge's behavior/ruling is so egregious that
                              it could deteriorate judicial integrity. Then, it is
                              not necessary that any objection appear on the record.

                              My point?

                              Never give up. Be aware of the plain error doctrine for
                              your own state, in case you ever need it.

                              I tried to schedule the court date for the subpeona for
                              the 19th of January, the one year anniversary from when
                              my case was filed, but it falls on a weekend. I doubt
                              the other side would have noted my irony.
                            • Frog Farmer
                              ... Flabby couldn t cut the mustard! ... There will come a day when these losers realize their error, but it isn t soon. ... Could you post the Illinois law
                              Message 14 of 15 , Dec 24, 2007
                                mn_chicago wrote:

                                > A few weeks ago, I was Noticed by a new firm

                                Flabby couldn't cut the mustard!

                                > that
                                > it was taking over the case. Guess the "lender"
                                > recognized that the local foreclosure-mill firm was
                                > out of their league beyond the routine, so they
                                > stepped it up a few notches to a firm with offices
                                > around the country.

                                There will come a day when these "losers" realize their error, but it
                                isn't soon.

                                > This time, I am fighting back from the onset by
                                > sending out a subpeona ducus tecum to the two that
                                > claim to be licensed to practice law in Illinois.
                                > Because a notice was mentioned as being sent to
                                > the initial "attorney" this new firm is replacing,
                                > I sent a subpoena to him, as well, (I figure, they
                                > opened the door for it), demanding that they all
                                > produce a license to practice law, with the oath
                                > of office certified and inscribed on the license,
                                > as prescribed by law, and that the firm they are with
                                > is also in compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rules.

                                Could you post the Illinois law that requires that the oath be ON the
                                license? Here in California it is Business & Professions Code Section
                                6067. I've told many people of this law but few choose to use it. I
                                have used it, and it is fun to use, because these attorneys just stand
                                and stammer at you - they don't have any excuse for the ignorance you
                                suddenly illuminate. I once "won" a whole bunch of "valuable prizes" at
                                a seminar where a supposed attorney was charging for and giving "trust"
                                advice. I expanded my booty by telling him my own interpretation of his
                                published words in his invitation, and I interpreted his words in my
                                favor and not his and demanded satisfaction, with witnesses of course,
                                and after I told him about 6067, I got all I wanted and MORE (when I
                                threw in a promise to forget all prior transgressions once I was
                                satisfied there and then)!

                                > Now lets see how the judge tries to deal with this
                                > approach.

                                I hate leaving outcomes up to them!

                                > Making objections is key for any appeal, (and I am
                                > on the record for making them), for without
                                > objections on the record, the reviewing court has
                                > nothing to review...

                                That should be capitalized, or a text file with just that fact should be
                                put in this list's file section for people to find, because it seems
                                that many people don't realize it and then just waste more time and
                                resources on an appeal that could never have won in the first place,
                                without a snowball's chance where users of the word that sounds like
                                gawd are going!

                                > ...unless one can bring in the plain error doctrine
                                > where the judge's behavior/ruling is so egregious that
                                > it could deteriorate judicial integrity. Then, it is
                                > not necessary that any objection appear on the record.

                                I don't like relying upon that "plain error doctrine" for this reason:
                                what should already be plain to Americans, like things that are plain to
                                maybe you and me, are not plain at all. Americans as a whole are
                                unconscious donkeys to permit what was once the best country in the
                                world to fall so low so fast without much resistance. As a whole,
                                Americans (and I am one) disgust me! I wouldn't trust a consensus from
                                a herd of donkeys (now genetically modified with lemming chromosomes)
                                for any decision I was going to make. So, I assume it is always me
                                against everyone else, and I let my allies show themselves and make
                                themselves plain to me; I do not assume they are out there anymore to
                                confirm that the errors I point out are "plain error". Maybe they used
                                to be there when people read more. But I would not bet a nickel they'd
                                be there now, in my own case, when I need reason logic and common sense
                                to prevail.

                                > My point?
                                >
                                > Never give up. Be aware of the plain error doctrine for
                                > your own state, in case you ever need it.

                                Right, never give up. And throw in the kitchen sink if you think it will
                                guarantee the outcome you prefer. Do whatever is possible to save the
                                day! I once saw a picture titled "Never Give Up!" It showed a frog
                                about to be swallowed by a heron, but the frog was choking his neck
                                making it impossible. You do what you have to do.

                                My first case, where I had set out to get prosecuted just to get
                                courtroom experience (which maybe was a dumb move looking back; I still
                                haven't decided because of the cheap education) I typed with no computer
                                available and produced over an inch and a half of paperwork over nine
                                months and nine hearings! The kitchen sink was in there! But later, for
                                my next performance, I worked without a net and reduced my efforts to
                                only one hearing and ten pages for a similar win. I guess I'm saying,
                                if you are in doubt do everything, but later, when you know the game,
                                you can just nail all the free throws.

                                > I tried to schedule the court date for the subpeona for
                                > the 19th of January, the one year anniversary from when
                                > my case was filed, but it falls on a weekend. I doubt
                                > the other side would have noted my irony.

                                Maybe they'd "get" April 19th.

                                Regards,

                                FF
                              • Michael Noonan
                                ... Of particular interest for you is 205/5, at the end: Illinois Compiled Statutes (705 ILCS 205/1) (from Ch. 13, par. 1) Sec. 1. No person shall be permitted
                                Message 15 of 15 , Dec 25, 2007
                                  --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

                                  >
                                  > Could you post the Illinois law that requires that
                                  > the oath be ON the license? Here in California it
                                  >is Business & Professions Code Section 6067.

                                  Of particular interest for you is 205/5, at the end:

                                  Illinois Compiled Statutes

                                  (705 ILCS 205/1) (from Ch. 13, par. 1)
                                  Sec. 1. No person shall be permitted to practice
                                  as an attorney or counselor at law within this State
                                  without having previously obtained a license for that
                                  purpose from the Supreme Court of this State.
                                  No person shall receive any compensation directly
                                  or indirectly for any legal services other than a
                                  regularly licensed attorney, nor may an unlicensed
                                  person advertise or hold himself or herself out to
                                  provide legal services.
                                  A license, as provided for herein, constitutes the
                                  person receiving the same an attorney and counselor at
                                  law, according to the law and customs thereof, for and
                                  during his good behavior in the practice and
                                  authorizes him to demand and receive fees for any
                                  services which he may render as an attorney and
                                  counselor at law in this State. No person shall be
                                  granted a license or renewal authorized by this Act
                                  who has defaulted on an educational loan guaranteed by
                                  the Illinois Student Assistance Commission; however, a
                                  license or renewal may be issued to the aforementioned
                                  persons who have established a satisfactory repayment
                                  record as determined by the Illinois Student
                                  Assistance Commission. No person shall be granted a
                                  license or renewal authorized by this Act who is more
                                  than 30 days delinquent in complying with a child
                                  support order; a license or renewal may be issued,
                                  however, if the person has established a satisfactory
                                  repayment record as determined (i) by the Department
                                  of Healthcare and Family Services (formerly Illinois
                                  Department of Public Aid) for cases being enforced
                                  under Article X of the Illinois Public Aid Code or
                                  (ii) in all other cases by order of court or by
                                  written agreement between the custodial parent and non
                                  custodial parent. No person shall be refused a license
                                  under this Act on account of sex.
                                  Any person practicing, charging or receiving fees
                                  for legal services or advertising or holding himself
                                  or herself out to provide legal services within this
                                  State, either directly or indirectly, without being
                                  licensed to practice as herein required, is guilty of
                                  contempt of court and shall be punished accordingly,
                                  upon complaint being filed in any Circuit Court of
                                  this State. The remedies available include, but are
                                  not limited to: (i) appropriate equitable relief; (ii)
                                  a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000, which shall be
                                  paid to the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation; and
                                  (iii) actual damages. Such proceedings shall be
                                  conducted in the Courts of the respective counties
                                  where the alleged contempt has been committed in the
                                  same manner as in cases of indirect contempt and with
                                  the right of review by the parties thereto.
                                  The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to
                                  other remedies permitted by law and shall not be
                                  construed to deprive courts of this State of their
                                  inherent right to punish for contempt or to restrain
                                  the unauthorized practice of law.
                                  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to conflict
                                  with, amend, or modify Section 5 of the Corporation
                                  Practice of Law Prohibition Act or prohibit
                                  representation of a party by a person who is not an
                                  attorney in a proceeding before either panel of the
                                  Illinois Labor Relations Board under the Illinois
                                  Public Labor Relations Act, as now or hereafter
                                  amended, the Illinois Educational Labor Relations
                                  Board under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations
                                  Act, as now or hereafter amended, the State Civil
                                  Service Commission, the local Civil Service
                                  Commissions, or the University Civil Service Merit
                                  Board, to the extent allowed pursuant to rules and
                                  regulations promulgated by those Boards and
                                  Commissions or the giving of information, training, or
                                  advocacy or assistance in any meetings or
                                  administrative proceedings held pursuant to the
                                  federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
                                  the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the federal
                                  Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or the
                                  federal Social Security Act, to the extent allowed by
                                  those laws or the federal regulations or State
                                  statutes implementing those laws.
                                  (Source: P.A. 94 659, eff. 1 1 06; 95 331, eff. 8 21
                                  07; 95 410, eff. 8 24 07.)


                                  (705 ILCS 205/5) (from Ch. 13, par. 5)
                                  Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the
                                  supreme court to make and keep a record, stating at
                                  the head thereof that the persons whose names are
                                  therein written have been regularly licensed and
                                  admitted to practice as attorneys and counselors at
                                  law within this State, and that they have duly taken
                                  the oath of office as prescribed by law, which shall
                                  be certified and indorsed on the license.
                                  (Source: Laws 1965, p. 34.)


                                  Heh, heh.



                                  > > Now lets see how the judge tries to deal with this
                                  > > approach.
                                  >
                                  > I hate leaving outcomes up to them!


                                  Point taken.


                                  > I don't like relying upon that "plain error
                                  > doctrine" for this reason: what should already be
                                  > plain to Americans, like things that are plain to
                                  > maybe you and me, are not plain at all.

                                  I am using it for an appeal on a moving violation
                                  where no objections on the record, except for lack of
                                  proper oath for the issuer of the complaint.

                                  For lack of objections on record, this can be the next
                                  best approach that I know of, and I fully intend to
                                  show how egregious was the behavior of the judge,
                                  like when after reading a comparison of the required
                                  constitutional oath and the one on file...similar, but
                                  not the same, as I pointed out...he laughed and said
                                  to me, "You must be kidding!" Then in an aside to
                                  his clerk, he said, "It must be a full moon."

                                  Should be fun, as you say.



                                  > Americans as a whole are unconscious donkeys to
                                  > permit what was once the best country in the
                                  > world to fall so low so fast without much
                                  > resistance.

                                  Now THIS is what should be in the files for everyone
                                  to read!

                                  Kind regards,

                                  mn


                                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                  Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                                  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.