Surprisingly, in spite of this rather lengthy dissertation on the Model Act, the majority in a footnote ultimately decline to answer the question of what “satisfactory evidence” is in Illinois. I would offer the following answer to that question. Professor Closen’s view is that two documents are required because the word “documents” is used in the plural. However, Closen’s position is wrong, pursuant to the plain language of the statute, and therefore Yamnitz’s training to get one photo identification was in compliance with the Illinois Notary Public Act. First, I note, as do the majority, that Professor Glosen is an expert, not a court, and it is not his prerogative to interpret a statute. Department of Corrections v. Illinois Civil Service Comm’n, 187 Ill. App. 3d 304, 308 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Second, while the appellate majority
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify holding that a reviewing court must defer to an agencys interpretation of an operable statute as long as that interpretation is consistent with legislative intent and is supported by substantial competent evidence holding that an expert is not competent to testify as to statutory interpretation holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review holding that an expert witnesss testimony on an ultimate issue was admissible recognizing that the expert did not specifically testify that the defendant was guilty or that as a matter of law the facts satisfied the applicable legal standard