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

Re: One Judge (Illinois) - Subpoena Ducus Tecum

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Jan 18, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 7 , Feb 5 9:56 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 7 , Feb 5 6:11 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 7 , Feb 13 5:24 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            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.