It is not a judicial function to attack the U.S. Constitution.

It is not a judicial function to issue a void order, an order issued without jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a judge who acts without jurisdiction, is engaged in treason.

It is not a judicial function to engage in a crime, especially a crime against the U.S. Government.

Judge Edward A. Bobrick acted in violation of the Constitution, he warred against the Constitution and against the government which he had taken an oath to uphold and which paid him.  Under the law, Judge Bobrick was not acting as a judge, but as a private person.

The law clearly and unequivocally states that all Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The law clearly and unequivocally further states that no presumption of jurisdiction attaches automatically to any court of limited jurisdiction, but that the determination of jurisdiction of a court of limited jurisdiction must be affirmatively found within the record of the case that is before the court.  When Judge Edward A. Bobrick cannot find evidence of jurisdiction of the trial court, he ignores the law and issues void orders and covers up these void orders.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a judge violates the U.S. Constitution whenever the judge issues an order without jurisdiction. The judge has committed a fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution.

It is clear and well established law that a judge must first determine whether the judge has both subject-matter and in personam jurisdiction before hearing and ruling in any case, and further must continue to monitor the case to be certain that jurisdiction was not lost, due to any violation of a Constitutional Right, fraud upon the court, appearance of partiality of any judge, or any act which deprives the court of jurisdiction, by any officer of the court, whether attorney or judge, during the proceedings.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have a duty, and no discretion, to determine their jurisdiction.  Judge Edward A. Bobrick violated his duty as a judge.

Judge Edward A. Bobrick has committed fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution. Judge Edward A. Bobrick has engaged in actions in which he brings the judicial office into disrepute.

In case no. 92-C-2391, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Judge Edward A. Bobrick "lacked authority" to issue an order. Without authority, i.e. jurisdiction, Judge Bobrick's order was void, of no legal force or effect.

Judge Bobrick further attempted to make a void order a valid order. But no judge has the lawful authority to make a void order into a valid order.  And in addition, Judge Edward A. Bobrick violated the litigant's First Amendment Rights. Judge Bobrick warred against the U.S. Constitution.

And he further attempted to cover up the misconduct of Judge Marvin E. Aspen.

CLR suggests, that whenever the judge or the government attorney has violated his/her oath to support the Constitution, all benefits received by the judge or the government attorney are based on fraud, and that all such benefits are "ill-gotten" gains. Also, all actions taken to benefit any party by the judge or the government attorney with these "ill-gotten" gains are also fraud upon the Defendant or the Plaintiff involved and/or the government. Those who may benefit from these "ill-gotten" gains, either directly or indirectly, may include the judge's and the government attorney's spouse, children, parents, in-laws, siblings, other relatives, friends, and associates.

Just as a person who is in possession of property which has been stolen is not the legal owner of the property, a person who is in possession of "ill-gotten" gains is not the legal owner of those "ill-gotten" gains. The stolen property must be returned to the legal owner; the "ill-gotten" gains should be returned to the legal owner.

The title to personal property requires a chain of proof as does the title to real property.

In criminal law the hardest case for a defense attorney that he must contend with, is a case where the client, the defendant, is accused of being "in possession of stolen property". In such a case the only valid defense is proof of ownership of the goods in question. The burden is on the party who may have "ill-gotten gains" in their possession to prove that they have not received any "ill-gotten gains".

The following is a list of some of the persons who may have received some of the "ill-gotten" gains obtained from the defrauding of the government by Judge Edward A. Bobrick:

Jane Axel Bobrick
Benjamin Bobrick
Nathaniel Bobrick
Rachel Bobrick

    email: clr@clr.org