Re: One Judge (Illinois) - Subpoena Ducus Tecum
- 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.