If Karen G. Shields, of Nadler, Pritikin, Mirabelli & Shields was your attorney in a divorce action at any time, please contact Citizens for Legal Responsibility at clr@clr.org.

Thank you.
 

Under Article VI, clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, every judge takes an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. Whenever any judge violates the Constitution in the course of performing his/her duties, then that judge is acting without lawful authority, has defrauded not only the Defendant or the Plaintiff involved, but has also defrauded the government. The judge is paid to support the U.S. Constitution. By not supporting the Constitution, the judge is collecting monies for work not performed.

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

The Supreme Law of the Land, applicable to Illinois courts through the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and applicable especially to pro se litigants, demands that they receive an adequate, complete, effective, fair, full, impartial, and meaningful access to the court. The Public Policy of the State of Illinois also demands the same for pro se litigants. The failure of a judge to comply fully with each and every element of access to the court deprives the judge of lawful authority.

It is not a judicial function to issue a void order, an order issued without jurisdiction. The Supreme Law of the Land holds that a judge who acts without jurisdiction, is engaged in treason.

A judge may not engage in any act in violating a person's First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. When such an act occurs, the judge is deprived of total jurisdiction and her actions are not those of a judge, but are those taken in her personal capacity.

Judge Karen G. Shields acted in violation of the Constitution, she warred against the Constitution and the Public Policy of the State of Illinois, and against the governments which she had taken an oath to uphold,  and the government which paid her. Under the law, Judge Shields was not acting as a judge, but as a private person.

The Supreme Law of the Land holds 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.

Judge Karen G. Shields has committed fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution. Judge Karen G. Shields has engaged in actions which has brought the judicial office into disrepute.

Under Illinois law, a judge has an absolute duty to, and has no discretion not to, report any and all attorneys who appear before them, who have been involved in any way in any suspected, alleged, or actual misconduct, to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Failure to do so is misconduct on the part of the judge. Should a judge not comply with the judge's absolute duty, then CLR suggests that the judge is involved in a conspiracy with, in collusion with, engaged in partnership with, and involved in aiding and abetting, the misconduct of the attorney. If such occurs, then CLR suggests that the judge has an absolute duty to recuse herself, and to declare void all orders issued, as the judge has not acted with impartiality.

CLR suggests, that whenever the judge has violated his/her oath to support the Constitution, all benefits received by the judge are based on fraud, and that all such benefits are "ill-gotten" gains. Also, all actions taken to benefit any party by the judge with these "ill-gotten" gains are also a 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 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 Karen G. Shields

Judge Richard E. Neville

Copyright© 2005 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
                   All rights reserved.

    email: clr@clr.org

     Home