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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Feb 5, 2008
    • 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 2 of 7 , Feb 5, 2008
      • 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 3 of 7 , Feb 13, 2008
        • 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.