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

Re: Fighting a Foreclosure

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Jun 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 15 , Jun 25, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 15 , Jun 25, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 15 , Jun 26, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 15 , Jun 28, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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 6 of 15 , Jul 4 11:27 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 15 , Jul 7 8:11 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 15 , Jul 7 4:54 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 15 , Jul 9 10:27 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 15 , Dec 23, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 15 , Dec 24, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 15 , Dec 25, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- 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.