Justice Sheila M. O'Brien acted in violation of the Constitution, she warred against the Constitution and against the government which she had taken an oath to uphold and which paid her.  Under the law, Justice O'Brien was not acting as a justice, but as a private person.

The law unequivocally states that all appellate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.  The law 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 found within the record of the case that is before the court.  When Justice Sheila M. O'Brien cannot find evidence of jurisdiction of the trial court, she ignores the law and issues void orders and covers up these void orders by issuing them under Supreme Court Rule 23, where other judges, attorneys, and the public do not easily see the unpublished order.

It is well established law that a valid complaint, as stated by statute, must have been filed and must be a part of the record of the trial court case.  Further, proper service of process must have been made, pursuant to statute, and proof of the legal service must be a part of the record of the trial court case.  Without proper service of process of a valid complaint, the trial court was without jurisdiction and the appellate court was also without jurisdiction.

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.

Justice Sheila M. O'Brien has committed fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution.

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 is the one he must contend with is a case where his 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 Justice Sheila M. O'Brien:

Federal Judge Wayne R. Andersen
Daughter Andersen

    email: clr@clr.org

Last updated January 22, 2001