Rule 23 Orders May Cover up
Judicial Misconduct

While there may have been valid reasons for issuing Supreme Court Rule 23 when it was originally issued, those reasons do not exist today. Not even attorneys agree with the reasons for, and restrictions placed on, Rule 23 orders.

Justices of the Illinois First District Appellate Court also use Rule 23 Orders to cover up Judicial Misconduct. Justices of other Illinois Appellate Courts may also use Rule 23 Orders for the same reasons, but, at this time, no person has presented Citizens with any documentation that it does occurs in other Districts.

What is a Rule 23 Order? It is a unpublished Order issued by an Illinois Appellate Court, so that the general public and lawyers in general do not read of the misconduct occurring in these courts. Probably if you have appealed a decision of the trial court, and the reviewing court issued a Rule 23 Order, you may have actually won your case, based on the law, but the reviewing court engaged in misconduct in covering up either the misconduct of the trial court judge, where the reviewing judges did not know the law, or where the reviewing justices had taken a bribe (the law states that a bribe does not need to be money - Black's Law Dictionary). Most litigants do not understand the law sufficiently to know if the Rule 23 Order was valid or was void. If it is void, you have a legal right to open that appeal again, in any court, in any State, and at any time, and all actions taken, based on that void order, are themselves void, of no legal force or effect. However, a void order is void ab initio, and this even prior to being reversed.

Rule 23 orders cannot be cited in another action, and are not precedential. A Federal judge stated, with regard to non-published, non-cited, non-precedential orders; "We may have decided this question the opposite way yesterday," Richard S. Arnold, a federal appeals court judge in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in describing the current system, "but this does not bind us today, and, what's more, you cannot even tell us what we did yesterday."

It has been reported that approximately 85% of Illinois appellate proceedings are not published. To correct this problem, and CLR believes it is a serious problem, CLR will be publishing selected Illinois Rule 23 orders of interest to its members. These selected Rule 23 orders can be found here.

"Normally, anyone dealing with a government agency assumes the risk of having ascertained whether the official or agent is acting within the bounds of his authority." Drury Displays, Inc. v. Brown, 715 N.E.2d 1230 (1999). The court is a government agency, and the judge, as an officer of the court, may or may not have lawful authority to issue a specific order. Without lawful authority, his orders are void ab intitio, of no legal force or effect.

No person, bank, title company, etc. can rely on that order. As an example, should the judge order a house to be sold, and the judge did not have jurisdiction to do so, then even though another party believes that they have purchased the property, the legal owner of the property is the party from which the judge unlawfully took the property. Most judges and attorneys pretend not to understand jurisdiction, as it deprives them of purported authority.

As only one example, an order is void if proper legal notice is not given to the opposing party. Further, such order violates the U.S. Constitution. An order is void if an attorney withdraws without first delivering to you all documents in his care, custody, or control which you may require to proprly proceed with the case on your own, in proper persona, unless you have employed another attorney to handle your case before the order granting withdrawal is actually granted. Click here for more details.

Your attorney(s) may not have informed you that the Rule 23 Order was not legal, since the attorney(s) by law must protect the courts or be disbarred. Who loses? You, the litigant, and justice.

Did the Justices of the Appellate Court have lawful authority (jurisdiction) to issue that Rule 23 Order? If they did not have jurisdiction, a jurisdiction conferred only by law, then they have no legal right to issue that Rule 23 Order. That Order is void, of no legal force or effect, and legally does not exist; it is nothing more than a blank piece of paper under the law.

The Illinois Appellate Court is a court governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, therefore the Justices must first accurately determine if the appeal falls within their scope of jurisdiction. The Justices must (1) first determine that the Notice of Appeal was filed within 30 days of a final order (there are exceptions), (2) that the trial court's order is truly a final order (although interlocutory appeals are permitted in some instances), and (3) must first determine that the trial court actually was conferred with subject-matter jurisdiction based on law. If the Justices should hear and rule on any appeal where the reviewing court was not properly conferred with subject-matter jurisdiction, then the order of the Reviewing court has no legal validity. The reviewing court must first make a determination of its jurisdiction before it can legally issue any valid order.

There is a presumption, under law, that a court governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction is without subject-matter jurisdiction. When jurisdiction is challenged, the party claiming that the court has jurisdiction has the legal burden to prove that jurisdiction was conferred upon the court through the proper procedure. Otherwise, the court is without jurisdiction.

Should the justices of the appellate court act without jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the justices are engaged in treason. See this web-site under Judges as Criminals for citations.

The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that the term "Law" denotes court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions and decisional law. Court Rules include Supreme Court Rules, Code of Judicial Conduct (for judges), Rules of Professional Conduct (for attorneys), and local Rules of the Court.

The Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 62(A), (a Supreme Court Rule) requires a Justice to comply with the law. When a Justice does not comply with the law, he/she violates the law and the Code of Judicial Conduct, and should be reported. Under certain circumstances, he loses subject-matter jurisdiction and has no lawful authority. In fact, he has engaged in treason. In the other circumstances, he/she acts as a criminal in violating the law. It is wrong for a Justice to act in either circumstance.


Copyright© 1998-2003 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
                        All rights reserved.


            Return to Home Page

Created August 15, 1998
Last updated on March 11, 2003