Should a judge act without jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in actions in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that should a judge act without jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in treason.

In at least one case, In re Adoption of E.L., 315 Ill.App.3d 137, 733 N.E.2d 846 (2000),  judge Bernetta D. Bush acted without jurisdiction. In doing so, she deprived the natural father of E.L. of the legal custody of his daughter, but, in effect, granted legal custody to what should properly be considered kidnappers. judge Bush did not correctly perform her judicial duties, unless she does not know the law about jurisdiction.

Lucky for the natural father of E.L., the Appellate Court Justices, in this instance, knew that jurisdiction had never been lawfully conferred upon judge Bernetta D. Bush.

In 2003, another of judge Bernetta D. Bush's decisions was again overturned, when the court ruled that judge Bush's order was null and void. An order is void whenever a judge acted without jurisdiction.

A judge violates due process whenever the judge acts without jurisdiction, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

When a judge acts without jurisdiction, the judge is not acting as a state judicial officer but acting only in her person. Then why is she accepting a salary from the State of Illinois for her personal activity in violating the law? Her salary is nothing more than ill-gotten gains, unlawfully taken from the State of Illinois. She and whomever benefeits from the receipt of her ill-gotten gains is the recipient of ill-gotten gains.

At the current time, judge Bernetta D. Bush is hearing a case wherein the court does not have jurisdiction.

When will judge Bernetta D. Bush learn the law relative to void orders?

One should not rely on the Appellate Court Justices to correctly determine if jurisdiction was lawfully conferred upon the trial court, or even their court.

     email: clr@clr.org

     Home