Judge William R. Penn
Circuit Court, Will County, Illinois
Every judge or government attorney takes an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. Whenever any judge or government attorney violates the Constitution in the course of performing his/her duties, then that judge or government attorney has defrauded not only the Defendant or the Plaintiff involved, but has also defrauded the government. The judge or the government attorney is paid to support the U.S. Constitution. By not supporting the Constitution, the judge or the government attorney is collecting monies for work not performed.

The Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, in Appellate case no. 3-99-0533, The Will County Board v. Kathleen Konicki, case no. 99-CH-618, found that Judge William R. Penn violated Ms. Konicki's Constitutional Rights.  Judge Penn acted in violation of the Constitution, he warred against the Constitution and against the government which he had taken an oath to uphold and which paid him.  Judge Penn was not acting as a judge, but as a private person.

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 in 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 defrauding the government by Judge William R. Penn:
Kathryn Penn
Laura
Lee Ann

Copyright© 2000-2001 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
                        All rights reserved. 
    email: clr@clr.org
Created December 2, 2000
Last revised January 10, 2001