Citizens will be publishing a critique of an unpublished order issued by Justice Sheila M. O'Brien. An attorney is now reviewing the order and Citizens will soon be publishing it here.

If you have appealed a judgment issued by a trial court in a statutory proceeding (divorce, adoption, traffic, paternity, etc., or in the Federal Courts), and have lost the appeal in an unpublished order, you might not have lawfully lost that appeal. Send a copy of the unpublished order (the order is actually published in the appellate court but not distributed to the public for public review; the unpublished order is also referred to as a Rule 23 order) to Citizens for its review.

To start, Judge Sheila M. O'Brien refers to the appeal of a non-existent divorce decree. Judge O'Brien's order refers to a 1989 dissolution of marriage, but the appeal concerns a void 1992 dissolution of marriage. Apparently Judge O'Brien was reviewing another appellate case, when she wrote the current unpublished order. Is Judge O'Brien senile? Illinois citizens need to have confidence in their judges, not contempt for them.

Before any order or judgment is valid, the judge must have both subject-matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction, and in a statutory proceeding the issued order "must contain the jurisdictional findings prescribed by statute."

Under Illinois law, subject-matter jurisdiction is conferred upon a court only by law. Since the law did not confer any lawful authority upon the court, Judge Sheila O'Brien decided to presume that she had lawful authority in complete disregard of the law. Under Illinois law, an allegation of subject-matter jurisdiction which is not supported by the record of the case does not confer any lawful authority upon the judge. Judge O'Brien acted unlawfully in that case. Citizens suggests that Judge Sheila M. O'Brien has also acted unlawfully in other cases.

Illinois law does not presume that any judge, acting in a statutory proceeding, has any subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Sheila M. Obrien issued a sham order to cover up the acceptance by a judge of a $6,700. bribe; she issued the sham order to protect Judge Philip S. Lieb (Cook County), a judge who was demoted and transfered mid-term from divorce court to an outlying court house for what has been reported that he was having sexual relations with a litigant before the court. To cover up this misconduct on a part of a judge, Chief Judge Donald P. O'Connell (Cook County) transfered Judge Lieb without filing a charge of judicial misconduct with the Illinois Judiciary Board.

The attorney reviewing the sham Rule 23 order reported that the court did not find that it held subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction. Under such rules there is no presumption that the court has any subject-matter jurisdiction. Without a presumption of subject-matter jurisdiction, there is no presumption that any of the orders of the court are valid.

The attorney further stated that an examination of the record of the trial court showed that there had never been any lawful service of process, a requirement for in personam jurisdiction. Both subject-matter jurisdiction and lawful service of process must occur for the court to have any jurisdiction. If either is missing, the court is without jurisdiction. In the case being reviewed, neither subject-matter jurisdiction nor in personam jurisdiction was obtained.

Contrary to what attorneys mislead their clients to believe, that an order from a court is always valid, the law states otherwise. In all courts, whether in courts of general jurisdiction or in courts of limited jurisdiction, the judge deprives the court of jurisdiction if the judge does not comply with the law.

Remember that a judge is not the court. The court may originally have jurisdiction, but the judge may have engaged in acts which deprive the court of jurisdiction.

In all courts of limited jurisdiction, all orders must contain the jurisdictional findings of the court. In the case at bar, the court did not report its findings, since its findings would impeached any alleged claim of jurisdiction.

As recently as this year (1999), the Illinois Supreme Court stated that "When the circuit court's power to act is controlled by statute, the circuit court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction and must proceed within the statute's strictures. Any action taken by the circuit court that exceeds its jurisdiction is void and may be attacked at any time." A void order has no validity.

The Appellate Court, being a court governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, "must proceed within the statute's strictures". Any action taken by any court that exceeds its jurisdiction is void. The Rule 23 order issued by Justice Sheila M. O'Brien in the case under review is void as a matter of law.

The attorney reminded Citizens that "a void act cannot be ratified." In re Garcia, 105 B.R. 335 (N.D.Ill. 1989). A void act is alway void and cannot ever be made valid.

Justice Sheila M. O'Brien is attempting to intentionally and deliberately harm the Petitioner since the Petitioner has filed in court and published on the Internet a Petition to Disqualify her and has reported her misconduct to the Illinois Judiciary Inquiry Board, and has published the complaint.

Under Illinois law, Justice Sheila M. O'Brien is a trespasser of the law. Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870).

Justice Sheila M. O'Brien continues to make a mockery of the Supreme Court's orders and of the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court.

Justice Sheila M. O'Brien continues to bring public disrepute to the Illinois courts and to the Illinois judiciary.

Copyright© 1999 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
                    All rights reserved.

     email: clr@clr.org

Created June 22, 1999

Last updated August 28, 1999