Fighting a foreclosure
- > Refusing to have a hearing on the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is a denial of
due process. Once challenged, it must be proven.
>you have not exhausted your administrative remedies? Maybe the lower
> What was the reason for the denial? Perhaps due to the fact that
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?
>court, no reason is ever given for
> 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
> the denial.doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't make a phone call. You need
> This will certainly embolden the judge who ignored
> my challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.
> Moderator/Bear: Not necessarily. Just because they denied it
a better way to get his attention. Try filing a criminal complaint
against him straight into the same case.
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
- Moisha Pippik [mailto:moishanb@...] wrote:
> What was the reason for the denial? Perhaps due to the fact thatI remember giving the magic mantra: "Formal Docketed Administrative
> you have not exhausted your administrative remedies?
Hearing On The Record". That phrase has scared lot of bureaucrats
> 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.
- 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
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!
- 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
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
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.
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.
- Demand & ask for the
ORIGINAL WET INK SIGNATURE
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.
- --- one <jm367@...> wrote:
> It seems if the plaintiff no longer has all theThat is my thought, as well. I am focusing on the
> evidence of cause of
> action in its possession, it has lost standing.
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.
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
- 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
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
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
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.
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
*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.
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.
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
Notarial Notice of Dishonor.
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
*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
Note that my demands included between 30 to 50 very
specific questions, each Notice accompanied by an
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.
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.
- 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
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
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.
- 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
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
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
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
Now I have a month to respond, and the new plaintiff gets
14 days to respond back, and then back to court in late
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.
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.
- 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
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.
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.
- mn_chicago wrote:
> A few weeks ago, I was Noticed by a new firmFlabby couldn't cut the mustard!
> thatThere will come a day when these "losers" realize their error, but it
> 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 byCould you post the Illinois law that requires that the oath be ON the
> 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.
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 thisI hate leaving outcomes up to them!
> Making objections is key for any appeal, (and I amThat should be capitalized, or a text file with just that fact should be
> on the record for making them), for without
> objections on the record, the reviewing court has
> nothing to review...
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 doctrineI don't like relying upon that "plain error doctrine" for this reason:
> 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.
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
> My point?Right, never give up. And throw in the kitchen sink if you think it will
> Never give up. Be aware of the plain error doctrine for
> your own state, in case you ever need it.
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 forMaybe they'd "get" April 19th.
> 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 <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
>Of particular interest for you is 205/5, at the end:
> 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.
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.)
> > Now lets see how the judge tries to deal with thisPoint taken.
> > approach.
> I hate leaving outcomes up to them!
> I don't like relying upon that "plain errorI am using it for an appeal on a moving violation
> 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.
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 toNow THIS is what should be in the files for everyone
> permit what was once the best country in the
> world to fall so low so fast without much
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping