One Judge (Illinois) On Requiring (Not) Attorney License
- 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
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
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.
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,
- mn_chicago wrote:
> Anyway, she said, in essence, she knows of noIn essence, is she admitting prejudice against the defendant because she
> 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.
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 II like to make friends with the bailiff before a hearing, and tell him
> wanted the objection more than noted. The
> attorneys had walked away, and the bailiff
> came over and told me to take a seat.
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 thinkingShowing is different than producing per a subpoena. You could have
> 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.
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 aI think the way to raise this issue is to object to anyone who speaks as
> 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.
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 courtroomAgain, this is a good reason to invest real time in trying to disqualify
> 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.
ALL the judges they try to put over you.
> I did say I wanted to reissue the subpoena thatMotions suck. Demands are for rights. Motions grant jurisdiction and
> would compel production of the license. That is
> when she made the comment of the issue of my
> motion in front of her.
indicate prior submission to the decision, in the same way that voting
indicates willingness to accept the outcome of the election.
- --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
> Motions suck. Demands are for rights. MotionsI need to be more careful. What I presented was a
> grant jurisdiction and
> indicate prior submission to the decision, in the
> same way that voting
> indicates willingness to accept the outcome of the
Notice and Demand, yet I referred to it twice as a
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
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,
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
- 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.
- 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
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
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.
- 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
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
> 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.
- Wednesday 13 February 2006
There is no way a judge is going to let anyone
challenge the attorney license issue here in
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
One thing for sure, Illinois ain't California.
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.