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

One Judge (Illinois) On Requiring (Not) Attorney License

Expand Messages
  • mn_chicago
    Tuesday 15 January 2008 This morning, I was in front of the judge for my foreclosure case, now in appeal, challenging a substitution of attorneys based on
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 15, 2008
      Tuesday 15 January 2008

      This morning, I was in front of the judge for
      my foreclosure case, now in appeal, challenging
      a substitution of attorneys based on fact they
      did not have a license with oath of office
      certified and inscribed on it per law, and had
      issued a subpoena ducus tecm making the demand.

      Last week, I noticed I had put 735 ILCS instead
      of 705 ILCS on the subpoena, so in court, I
      requested an additional two weeks to correct my
      inadvertent error.

      Judge said, you can if you want to, but I have
      no problem with what is in front of me, and that
      is your motion challenging the substitution.

      She put the subpoena aside.

      What occurs to me as I compose this is her choice
      of words, "what is in front of me." Perhaps that
      was her way of getting around dealing with the
      subpoena?

      Anyway, she said, in eseence, she knows of no
      law that an attorney must produce his license to
      practice, and said I should check with the ARDC
      to determine their license standing.

      Motion denied.

      I objected, ojection was noted, and I said I
      wanted the objection more than noted. The
      attorneys had walked away, and the bailiff
      came over and told me to take a seat.

      While in court, I got ahead of my thinking
      when the judge said she knows of no law
      that an attorney has to show his license,
      and if I have any proof they do not, I should
      bring it forward.

      While I said I cannot prove the existence of a
      license when it is in the possession of each
      attorney, I did not think, at the time, to say
      that I know of no law that precludes an attorney
      from having to produce his/her license.

      My motion was well-written. My courtroom
      response was not well done. The point is to
      show how judges handle the issue of no license,
      and I was not effective in countering that
      position. This may lead someone to be more
      effective as a result of my experience.

      I did say I wanted to reissue the subpoena that
      would compel production of the license. That is
      when she made the comment of the issue of my
      motion in front of her.

      I made the mistake of being uncertain how strong
      a subpoena ducus tecum is, and whether a judge
      has the discretion to not enforce it, for the
      door is still open to reissue a corrected one
      with the right statute reference,

      Regards,

      mn
    • Frog Farmer
      ... In essence, is she admitting prejudice against the defendant because she is letting just anyone practice in her court without having to prove they have the
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 15, 2008
        mn_chicago wrote:

        > Anyway, she said, in essence, she knows of no
        > law that an attorney must produce his license to
        > practice, and said I should check with the ARDC
        > to determine their license standing.
        >
        > Motion denied.

        In essence, is she admitting prejudice against the defendant because she
        is letting just anyone practice in her court without having to prove
        they have the required documents when challenged on it? How does she
        know he's an attorney? She sees him by the water cooler a lot? Is she
        a character witness for him? Will she go on the witness stand to
        testify that she knows he has the required documentation, or would she
        prefer to defend him with her own affidavit to the necessary facts?

        > I objected, ojection was noted, and I said I
        > wanted the objection more than noted. The
        > attorneys had walked away, and the bailiff
        > came over and told me to take a seat.

        I like to make friends with the bailiff before a hearing, and tell him
        to be ready to seal the courtroom in order to get the names and contact
        info from the witnesses to the events that will soon constitute a crime.
        Then you have yet another name of someone willing to take sides either
        with the law or against it.

        > While in court, I got ahead of my thinking
        > when the judge said she knows of no law
        > that an attorney has to show his license,
        > and if I have any proof they do not, I should
        > bring it forward.

        Showing is different than producing per a subpoena. You could have
        shown the law that requires it, and ask her how she determines
        compliance with it. Psychic Hotline, or ESP? Either that, or have her
        tell you that anyone can practice law without a license now. Is that
        how it is?

        > While I said I cannot prove the existence of a
        > license when it is in the possession of each
        > attorney, I did not think, at the time, to say
        > that I know of no law that precludes an attorney
        > from having to produce his/her license.

        I think the way to raise this issue is to object to anyone who speaks as
        soon as they do, and asking them to their face where they get their
        standing to speak in your court. Challenge them to produce or leave.
        What are qualifications for, if not to qualify? Must we now accept the
        unsworn word of professional liars? I guess we do if we cannot think of
        a reason not to do it.

        > My motion was well-written. My courtroom
        > response was not well done. The point is to
        > show how judges handle the issue of no license,
        > and I was not effective in countering that
        > position. This may lead someone to be more
        > effective as a result of my experience.

        Again, this is a good reason to invest real time in trying to disqualify
        ALL the judges they try to put over you.

        > I did say I wanted to reissue the subpoena that
        > would compel production of the license. That is
        > when she made the comment of the issue of my
        > motion in front of her.

        Motions suck. Demands are for rights. Motions grant jurisdiction and
        indicate prior submission to the decision, in the same way that voting
        indicates willingness to accept the outcome of the election.

        Regards,

        FF
      • Michael Noonan
        ... I need to be more careful. What I presented was a Notice and Demand, yet I referred to it twice as a motion. The more I thought about this last night,
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 16, 2008
          --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

          > Motions suck. Demands are for rights. Motions
          > grant jurisdiction and
          > indicate prior submission to the decision, in the
          > same way that voting
          > indicates willingness to accept the outcome of the
          > election.

          I need to be more careful. What I presented was a
          Notice and Demand, yet I referred to it twice as a
          motion.

          The more I thought about this last night, when the
          judge said, "The only issue I have in front of me...'"
          after having put the subpoena aside, I realized I had
          been duped, and this is something everyone reading
          this needs to know going into court. It is a ruse.

          Technically, she was correct. The only issue IN FRONT
          OF HER, at the moment, is what she is reading. She
          did this to me once before, now that I think about it,
          when I had several issues in a previous Notice and
          Demand. It seemed odd to me that she reduced all my
          issues to just one. Now I know why. She ignored the
          others. Shame on me.

          That she would use this ruse tells me I am on point
          but unable to make it stick. I will issue another
          subpoena ducus tecum and will state that the supoena
          is the only issue in front of the court.

          I admit to not being sufficiently court-room battle-
          tested, for I knew I should have objected and claimed
          bias for the attorneys and prejudice against me, but
          the moment passed, and I was being told to be seated
          by the bailiff.

          Part of my statement is to be that while the court
          says there is no law that says an attorney must show
          a license, I will say that is bias because it can
          equally be said there is no law that says an attorney
          is precluded from showing his/her license when demand
          is made.

          The import, if any, in sharing these thoughts is that
          the application can work in any situation, and this
          shows how one must be better prepared to take a stand
          and stand up for one's self. No one else will.

          From the trenches,

          mn


          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
          http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
        • mfdecoder
          You should check the rules in your state. In NY, you do not need to have it issued by the judge. Schedule an evidentiary hearing for them to produce the info.
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 18, 2008
            You should check the rules in your state.

            In NY, you do not need to have it issued by the judge.

            Schedule an evidentiary hearing for them to produce the info. Put
            that for your time and date of appearance on the subpeona.

            You can just take it to the clerk of the court and have them sign it.

            Hope this helps.
          • mn_chicago
            Tuesday 5 February 2008 Turns out in Illinois, anyone with a professional license is presumed to have it [and burden on the challenger to prove otherwise],
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 5, 2008
              Tuesday 5 February 2008

              Turns out in Illinois, anyone with a professional
              license is "presumed" to have it [and burden on
              the challenger to prove otherwise], which is why
              my efforts to demand proof of license have been
              failing.

              While I lack the depth and experience of a FF, I
              do have tenacity. Rather than accept yet another
              turn down in my demand for proof, I found the above
              info during research, which was deflating, and then
              I spotted a comment that caught my attention.

              It was a reference to Greenleaf on Evidence, and
              specifically dealing with a negative averment, and
              there it was, in a footnote, reference to an Illinois
              case!

              Reading that case led me to a few others, as well.

              I just finished my Notice and Demand For Proof of
              License To Practice Law With Subpoena Duces Tecum.

              Turns out, by my introducing the statutes which
              require a license, with oath of office certified and
              inscribed on the license BEFORE being admitted to
              practice law, it is EVIDENCE that supports my negative
              averment (I have not seen proof of a license).

              Absent any counter testimony, when proof lies peculiarly
              with the other party, affords reasonable ground for
              presuming that the allegation (my negative averment of
              not being licensed) is true!!!

              "Onus probani" on the other party!

              In a dig at the judge, I noted that "this was the only
              issue the court will see in front of it."

              I chose 13 February as my day in court.

              Cheers!

              mn
            • Val Christian
              This may be meaningless in your situation... In NY I was prosecuted by a non-attorney, who under county law 700 did not have: -a letter of authorization to act
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 5, 2008
                This may be meaningless in your situation...
                In NY I was prosecuted by a non-attorney, who
                under county law 700 did not have:
                -a letter of authorization to
                act as a prosecutor
                -an oath of office
                -a bond

                All of these are required to be on file in the county clerk's office.
                I did an open records FOI request for these documents, and was told
                by the clerk that they had none of them. I asked for a response in
                writing, which they reluctantly provided. That constitutes my proof
                that the proper authorization to act as a prosecutor was not in
                place. At trial I also asked the prosecutor what law school he
                graduated from, and whether was a member of the bar. So that is
                on the "record" whatever that means from that court.

                The point is that there may be a different way to get certified what
                you want to have certified.



                >
                > Tuesday 5 February 2008
                >
                > Turns out in Illinois, anyone with a professional
                > license is "presumed" to have it [and burden on
                > the challenger to prove otherwise], which is why
                > my efforts to demand proof of license have been
                > failing.
                >
                > While I lack the depth and experience of a FF, I
                > do have tenacity. Rather than accept yet another
                > turn down in my demand for proof, I found the above
                > info during research, which was deflating, and then
                > I spotted a comment that caught my attention.
                >
              • mn_chicago
                Wednesday 13 February 2006 There is no way a judge is going to let anyone challenge the attorney license issue here in Illinois. Despite what I thought was a
                Message 7 of 7 , Feb 13, 2008
                  Wednesday 13 February 2006

                  There is no way a judge is going to let anyone
                  challenge the attorney license issue here in
                  Illinois.

                  Despite what I thought was a lean, well-written,
                  factual pleading, incorporating existing case
                  law decisions and language, my efforts were
                  denied for a fourth time, today.

                  I was prepared to say to this group that perhaps
                  I was not forceful enough in defending my
                  position to the judge, but I said all I had
                  prepared in what I figured was a strong argument,
                  backed by law, but no. Denied for the last time,
                  and subject to sanctions should I bring the
                  issue up again.

                  That was not really a threat to me, just the
                  judge telling me I tried, and it ain't going
                  to fly. I can deal with it in appeals, but not
                  in court again. Even I agree, having just spent
                  my best shot.

                  Her position was that while it is the law that
                  an attorney must be licensed, there is no law
                  that requires them to show a license in a case,
                  and certainly not in a foreclosure case.

                  I argued that I am entitled to know that those
                  who claim to be who they are must prove it, or
                  the court is not properly set. I objected to
                  her ruling, based on bias and prejudice, but to
                  no avail.

                  One thing for sure, Illinois ain't California.

                  Cheers!

                  mn


                  As an aside, I took another look at two judge's
                  oath of office I have on file, and they are word
                  for word as required per the Illinois constitution.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.