Denials and demand for "strict proof" - Will County

The "strict proof" language is just one of those many "lawyerly" phrases that still hangs around in documents because some people still like to use it and/or they cut and paste from other answers they've used and it's still there--and , let's be honest, it sounds intense. The main point though is to just read over it. It adds nothing. It's just a denial. An unnecessarily wordy denial, true, but still just a denial. There is no basis for a 137sanction on a denial phrased to sound like a tough guy. The addition of the word "strict" does not change the standard of proof needed to defeat your claim. It's just rhetoric. Don't let it bother you.

You should focus on the evidence and the proofs that are necessary to establish your defense and/or claim. Do not worry about the style of the pleading. If it turns out that a party has filed a pleading which is knowingly false you can obtain sanctions at a later date.

This answer is for informational purposes only and is not meant to be nor should it be considered the providing of legal advice.

If your allegation is not specific enough to be answered, it must be admitted or denied and should be denied. Your opponent could also have served you with a Demand for Bill of Particulars. This entire line of questions from you has been a little disconcerting since you have in effect asked all the lawyers who have contributed to your inquiries to teach you how to practice law. At some point, you need to either hire your own lawyer or stop asking us to provide you with all your answers. We went to law school and have over time learned how to practice law. You are asking us to do for you for free what we do for our paying clients. Attorneys only have one thing to offer and that is our services based upon our skill and experience.

I say this with respect for you and fully anticipate your response which could be that if I don't wish to answer, I should not, but keep in mind that your continued questions here are, albeit unintentional, disrespectful of the volunteer attorneys and their time. Pleasae consider hiring an attorney to coach you through the process if you persist in handling your case pro se. You are being out-lawyered.

Although AVVO describes this site as providing free legal advice, it is really a simple Q&A forum. The volunteer attorneys provide general answers. No specific legal advice is given here and no attorney-client relationship is established. For precise direction and legal advice, please consult in person with an attorney in your area. Be sure to bring all relevant paperwork with you.

First of all, the "strict proof thereof" is a term that was in vogue when I began practicing two and a half decades ago. It is virtually meaningless and of no legal heft these days. You either deny or admit things alleged in a complaint. If you have no knowledge, you can say so and neither admit nor deny.

We can't give you a lesson on how to plead your case, nor can we explain exactly what procedural tact you should take. Again, the fact that you alleged something and the other side denied it. So the next step is to prove it at trial.

A good example is I get injured in a car crash and allege the other driver caused it and that I'm injured as a result. They admit that the cars crashed but deny they were at fault or that my bills are related. So at trial, my job then is to prove they are at fault and that my bills are related. I'd have to call witnesses, offer documents etc. to do this. How you do that is up to you, but obviously has to be within the bounds of the rules of evidence and civil procedure.

Good luck.

This answer posted on Avvo is for informational and educational purposes only. There is no attorney-client relationship created or formed and you should not rely on this as legal advice. The suggestion is made that if you wish to protect your rights, you consult with an attorney immediately.

It is up to you to prove your case. This is true even if the, I am guessing you meant the Defendant, knows the facts to be true. Without knowing what you have alleged, it is difficult to say if the answers are worthy of sanction. The allegations in your complaint are not in and of themselves sufficient. Attorneys are prohibited from soliciting your business through this website. You will need to contact attorneys individually. You might try an internet search or use the Find a Lawyer tab at the top of the page.

By the very nature of Avvo, you have only provided limited facts and no documentation, therefore, our response to your question is treated only as a hypothetical, and as such it is merely general in nature. You should not rely on this response in taking or forgoing action in your circumstances without discussing this matter with an attorney. If we had the opportunity to ask you sufficient questions and review relevant documents so that we were satisfied we had all of the relevant facts and circumstances, our response might differ significantly. Without the opportunity to ask you questions, and review all relevant documents and memoranda, we are simply unable to provide any form of legal advice. Our response to your question does not create any attorney-client relationship between us, and we are not acting as your attorney. We reserve the right to decline representation in any case. By answering your question, we are under no obligation to answer further questions. There are very specific deadlines for filing a lawsuit, replying to a lawsuit filed against you, or taking other action in order to preserve your legal rights. You should contact an attorney immediately in order to be fully advised of your rights, and so that you are aware of those deadlines. If you fail to act within the required time frame, you might be forever barred from asserting your rights or defending your position. The attorney answering this question is licensed in Illinois and Iowa only.

The concept of "strict proof" is not found anywhere in Illinois law and it is not proper to make such demands.

Judges are loathe to enter sanctions under Rule 137. Any motion brought pursuant to that Rule is itself subject to Rule 137.

Good luck.

I think Rule 137 litigation is to lawsuits what the bomb squad is to police work. It is different in kind and deadly. One mistake and you are cooked. Get a lawyer, please.