"This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

And pursuant to Title 4 U.S.C. §101 and §102 notwithstanding any conflicting Illinois state statutes as stated:

§101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers

"Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: `I, A.B., do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
(July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 643.)
 

§102. Same; by whom administered

"Such oath shall be administered by any person who, by the law of the State, is authorized to administer the oath of office, and the person so administering such oath shall cause a record or certificate thereof to be made in the same manner, as by the law of the State, he is directed to record or certify the oath of office.
(July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 644.)

The Constitution of the United States of America represents the United States Government.

Whenever a judge acts and deprives any person of any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, that judge had declared war against the Constitution. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958) ("No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.").

Since the Constitution represents the government, the judge has also declared war against the United States of America.

The United States Supreme Court has held that "Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction.". Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 24 (1908), citing Old Wayne Mut. Life Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 14 S.Ct. 1108 (18**); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877).

As due process is a constitutional right, any judge who acts without, or in excess of, subject-matter jurisdiction has engaged in an act in violation of the United States Constitution and has declared war against the United States of America.

Judges have no right to usurp jurisdiction when it is not given to them. Should a judge usurp jurisdiction, it would be treason to the Constitution. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).

All judges in a statutory proceeding are presumed under law not to have subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction can only be determined by an inspection of the record.

If a judge should hear and consider any cause for which the court does not hold jurisdiction, the judge would be acting in treason to the Constitution, and since the Constitution represents the United States of America, the judge would be acting in treason to the United States government.

The judge would be engaged in an act of treason, and will have attacked the United States Government.

In case no. 91-D-5122, six judges (Justices O'Brien, Theis,  Hoffman, Gallagher and Frossard, and Judge William Ward) have inspected the record of the case and have reported that they found that the record of the case does not contain a Petition (Complaint). Judges Timothy Evans, Philip S. Lieb, Francis Gembela, and Veronica B. Mathein have accepted the findings of the four judges, as they have a duty to either inspect the record of the case or to accept the findings of the four judges. No judge has found that there is a Petition in the record of case no. 91-D-5122.

The Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that, in all statutory proceedings, the record of the case must contain a valid Petition (Complaint), or else the court is without subject-matter jurisdiction. Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930).

American men and women have died, or have become physically or mentally damaged, or both, to support the U.S. Government and its Constitution. These American men and women, who have died, must be turning over in their graves when they see Judge Mathein declaring war against the Constitution. They died to support the Constitution; Judge Mathein is being paid by the State of Illinois to war against the Constitution. Judge Mathein has made a mockery of the sacrifices made by the many honorable men and women who fought for the United States.

What would the men who died in protecting this Government, if they could, and their families suggest  be done to judges who war against the Constitution and the United States of America? What do men who were physically or mentally harmed in protecting this Government, or their families, suggest to be done to judges who war against the Constitution and the United States of America?

Copyright 2000 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
                    All rights reserved.

    email: clr@clr.org