Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: One Judge (Illinois) On Requiring (Not) Attorney License
- 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.