MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION OF VA CODE § 54.1 3935 (2017) AND VA CODE § 8.01-223.2 (2017), ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ V. VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD, SCOTUS DOCKET NO. 20-25

Featured

Tags

,

PURPOSE

            Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) files this Motion to enforce the federal interest under Art. Four, § 4, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution to guarantee a “Republican Form of Government” by ensuring that “justice is applied fairly” to all Citizens by the Government of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia”) by enjoining legislation violating the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under  Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const.

            Thus, the position of the parties on the disposition of the Motion is unchanged since it seeks on behalf of the Citizens of Virginia compliance by equitable relief with the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under  Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., because,

            “Crime is contagious.  If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy,” Olmsted v. United States, 277 US 438, 451 (1928).

FACTS

In response to Rodriguez’s petitions for grievances (See http://t.co/slv7pz3zd5), in 2017, legislation was enacted to ex post facto amend VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950 to 2017) in violation Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., and Art. XII § 1 of the VA Const., to adopt retroactively the 1998 unconstitutional court rules establishing the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court” and appointing VSBDB members as judges (VA Code § 54.1-3935 (2017)), and, second, legislation was enacted in violation of Act. IV § 14, &3(18) VA Const. as special legislation (VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) and 2019 HB 2111) to grant immunity to the VSBDB as a private association for a business conspiracy.

Thus, this Motion for prospective relief on behalf of all Citizens of Virginia that is distinct from Rodriguez’s underlying petition now before the Court for remand of the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition to obtain impartial judicial review by a Virginia court of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s (“VSBDB”) for issuing in 2006 a Void Ab Initio Order disbarring Rodriguez for litigating to enforce statutory rights by the usurping of judicial authority as a “kangaroo court.”

LEGAL ARGUMENT

To enjoin future “resist[ance] to the execution of the laws under color of authority” by the use of VA Code § 54.1-3935(2017) and VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017), the nondispositive prospective Motion seeks equitable relief under the common law[1] and under VA Code §§ 8.01-184 et seq.

The facts confirm there has been the enactment of legislation by the three branches of the Government of Virginia in violation of the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under  Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const., and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const. These amended provisions of Virginia’s Code have been unlawfully enacted to effect in 2017 a retroactive change of the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system established since 1932 under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2009), by passing VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017) to “[c]onform the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” by adopting in 2017 Supreme Court of Virginia Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 issued in 1998 to delegate the General Assembly’s legislative authority unconstitutionally: (a) to retroactivley adopt the Supreme Court of Virginia establishment of a centralized statewide attorney disciplinary system; (b) to retroactivley adopt the Supreme Court of Virginia establishment of the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” with judicial power to discipline attorneys; and, (c) to retroactivley adopt the Supreme Court of Virginia appointment of  VSBDB members as “judges.

            However, under Art. VI §§ 1 & 7 VA Const., the judicial power to revoke a license to practice law is governed by statute, not court rules.  Ex Parte Fisher, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835) 624-25 (1835).  See In re Johathan A. Moseley, Sup Ct. VA No 061237 (2007).  Thus, in response to the holding in Legal Club of Lynchburg v. AH Light, 137 Va. 249 at 250, 119 SE 55 (1923), citing Fishers Case, supra. (See Footnote 2), the General Assembly enacted in 1932 the Acts of Assembly p. 139 to establish a decentralized statewide attorney disciplinary system to give statewide effect to a lower court’s discipline of an attorney.  To this end, the General Assembly only delegated judicial authority to each County circuit court to discipline attorneys. See When Has the Supreme Court of Appeals Original Jurisdiction of Disbarment Proceedings, RHC. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jan. 1924), pp. 246-248; and David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954).  Only after the issuance of a rule against an attorney, filed with the county clerk’s office of the county court having jurisdiction. See Campbell v. Third District Committee of Virginia State Bar, 179 Va. 244, 18 S.B.2d 883 (1942).

            The citizens ratified Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. granting power only to the General Assembly to enact legislation to give judicial authority, to create “court” and appoint “judges.” Under the amending procedure of Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under  Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., only the Citizens of Virginia can amend the Constitution of Virginia to modify their gridwork of separation of power between the three branches of the Government of Virginia.

            Consequently, based on the logic under the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the unlawful enactment of VA Code § 54.1-3935(2017) and VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) demands that these sections be enjoined complete nullity from their issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner.  Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390, 402, (2007); Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51‑52(2001); Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705 (1925).

            The US Supreme Court decision in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), established the benchmark on the right of Rodriguez to challenge the VSBDB void ab initio order, by holding,

Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the validity of such judgments may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that Court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law. . . . To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution‑‑that is, by the law of its creation‑‑to pass upon the subject‑matter of the suit.” (Emphasis added).

A. IRREPARABLE HARM

            Consistent with the doctrine of separation of power, the citizens ratified Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. and granted power only to the General Assembly: (1) to enact legislation giving judicial authority; (2) to enact legislation to create lower and appellate courts to the Supreme Court of Virginia; and (3) to appoint “judges.”

QUERY, UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE VA CONST. WAS ENACTED THE RETROACTIVE 2017 VA SECTIONS TO ADOPT COURT RULES GIVING JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO THE VSBDB AS A LOWER COURT AND MAKING VSBDB MEMBERS AS JUDGES?

            The obvious answer is that there has been a willful violation of the separation of power under Art. I § 5, Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 54.1‑3935 (2009) to conceal the VSBDB was acting as a “kangaroo court” and issuing Void Ab Initio Order.[2]

            Therefore, Rodriguez has a “legal interest” that has been irreparably harmed by the business conspiracy damaging his law business, reputation, profession, and property rights, and the injunction is mandated.  See Radin v. Crestar Bank, 249 Va. 440, 442, 457 S.E.2d 65, 66 (1995).  This evidence must be viewed as true to establish ongoing irreparable harm. See Virginia Marine Res. Comm’n v. Clark, 281 Va. 679, 686-87, 709 S.E.2d. 150, 154-55 (2011).

B. INADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW

             Based on the record of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by jury,[3] to secure compliance with the limitations and prohibitions under the Constitution of Virginia, there is no amount of monetary relief at law or legal remedy is appropriate or available that will compensate the Citizens for the unlawful enactments in 2017.

C. ADVERSE IMPACT ON DEFENDANT

            The damage to the Citizens of the Commonwealth is evident.  Any potential harm from the injunction to compel the compliance with the amending procedure of Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under  Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const., and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., is nonexistent.

D. LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS

            The Citizens placed under Art. I § 5 VA Const. and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., the power exclusively with the General Assembly to enact legislation to give judicial authority, to create courts, and to appoint judges.  This constitutional power granted by the Citizens of Virginia may not be delegated.  When the General Assembly does delegate authority to promulgate rules, the rules must neither exceed the scope of the authority delegated nor be inconsistent with it (Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 34 Va. App. 273, 276, 540 S.E.2d 521, 522 (2001).  Also, the “[d]elegations of legislative power which lack such policies and standards are unconstitutional and void.Ames v. Town of Painter, 239 Va. 343, 349, 389 S.E.2d 702, 705 (1990) (Emphasis added).

            Under the common law, there is no absolute immunity for acts outside legal authority, and this includes legislators that engage in acts outside ‘the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 US 367 at 376 (1951), and judges acting without judicial authority in “clear absence of all jurisdiction.Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U. S. 351. Pp. 435 U. S. 355-357; Johnston v. Moorman, 80 Va. 131, 142 (1885); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).  Under the common law, these issues require a jury trial.[4]

            Rodriguez’s Motion for a preliminary/permanent injunction is to enjoin prospectively the enactment of unlawful legislation to prevent the “the execution of the laws under color of authority” Injunctive relief is appropriate when the Court is “satisfied of the plaintiff’s equity” based on the record of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court and statutory/Common law jury trial.

            Rodriguez has demonstrated “irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law,” Levisa Coal Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 276 Va. 44, 46 (2008), based upon the violation of VA Code §§ 18.2.499 and 500B & VA Code § 8.01-628.

            The Court “will give due weight to the adverse effect of the injunction being granted on the defendant.” supra. Also, the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim is to be considered in deciding to award an injunction.  Wings, LLC v. Capitol Leather, LLC, 88 Va. Cir. 83, 89 (Fairfax Co., 2014).  Finally, irreparable harm does not mean that there be no “possibility of repairing the injury. All that is meant is that the injury would be a grievous one, or at least a material one, and not adequately reparable in damages.” Callaway v. Webster, 98 Va. 790 (1990).

            All the above factors strongly support Rodriguez’s complaint and arguments to enjoin VSBDB void ab initio order.[5]

CONCLUSION

             This Motion is filed under the common law because of the enactment of unlawful legislation that has violated VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 54.1‑3935 (2009), and there has been a systemic denial of access to an impartial court to compel compliance with the above-cited provisions of the Constitution of Virginia.  For the above reasons, Rodriguez respectfully requests that this Court grant the Motion.

 Respectfully submitted,

         Isidoro Rodríguez 

Isidoro Rodríguez

Residence:  2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227

Vienna, Virginia 22180

(571) 477-5350/E-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com


      [1]VA Code § 1-200, states “The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.  VA. Code § 1-10; 2005.

                [2]The Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, mandates that when an entity such as the VSBDB has neither constitutional authority, nor statutory authority, not legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any act or order, said act or order is void ab initio—because they are a complete nullity from their issuance, and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner. SeeCollins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390, 402 (2007); Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51‑52(2001); Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705 (1925); Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95(1987); and Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352 (1803).

                [3]As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by men, by which the government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” (Emphasis added)

                [4]See Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (Rodriguez argued and won before the United States Supreme Court to reverse the USCA for the 4th Circuit, to order a common law evidentiary hearing before a jury for acts outside the scope of employment.  In Fox v. Deese, 234 Va. 412, 423-24 (1987). The court held “Resolution of these allegations requires an evidentiary hearing.  The defendants are not immune if the evidence establishes that (1) they committed intentional torts, irrespective of whether they acted within or without the scope of their employment, Elder v. Holland, 208 Va. 15, 19, 155 S.E.2d 369, 372_73 (1967), or (2) they acted outside the scope of their employment, see Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 311, 321 S.E.2d 657, 662 (1984).”

                [5]In 2017 the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine was compounded by the passage of an unconstitutional ex post facto change to the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system established since 1932 under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2009), to retroactively “[c]onform the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” by adopting the Supreme Court of Virginia’s unconstitutional Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6. See VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017).

REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF INTEREST IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, NO. 20-25

Featured

July 20, 2020

Attorney General of the United States The Hon. William Barr,

Solicitor General Noel Francisco, and,

Assistant United States Attorney for The Eastern District of Virginia G. Zachary Terwilliger

Greetings:

In the interest of the United States, I request under 28 USC § 517 (2014) that each of you file a Statement of Interest for SCOTUS to grant the enclosed Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed on July 15, 2020, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, No. 20-25.  I underscore that this section states,

“The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.”  (Emphasis added)

Therefore, the request for Statement of Interest is made pursuant to the federal government’s interest, right and duty to secure compliance by the courts of the Commonwealth of Virignia with the mandates of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, the limitation on them pursuant to the Constitution of Virginia and Virigna Code (see 2009 Petitoin to NOVA members of General Assemvly). Under Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) at 176 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall defined the Void Ab Initio Doctrine, holding that,

“to what purpose are [the Court’s] powers limited, and to what purpose are those limitation in writing [on the Court], if these limitations may, at any time, be passed over and ignored by [the Court who is] intended to be restrained, controlled and limited?” (Emphasis added)

Consequently, this request for a Statement of Interest under 28 USC. § 517 (2014) is supported by Attorney General John Ashcroft observation that,

“it is in the federal government’s interest to have effective and fair state courts, lest litigants turn to federal courts to resolve matters properly within state court responsibilities.” November 2, 2003, Department of Justice Evaluation of the State Judicial Institute’s Effectiveness to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. (Emphasis added)

In this contest of “the federal government’s interest to have effective and fair state courts,” this request is sent to each of you based on the federal interest of not permitting the government and courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia to systemically deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury of government undertakings outside the scope of legal authorty and scope of employment in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the separation of power under Art. VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of Virginia (VA Const.”), and the prohibitions under VA Code § 54-1-3915 & 54.1 3935 (See Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court).

Thus, this request is under Art. Four, § 4, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution which makes it a federal interest to ensure that “justice is applied fairly,” by guaranting that the three branches of the government of the Commonwealth of Viringia provide a “Republican Form of Government” assuring access to an impartial court and a common law trial by jury to obtain accountability for government undertakings outside the scope of legal authorioty and scope of employment. See also Martin v. City of Boise, No. 09-cv-540-REB (D. Idaho September 28, 2015), ECF No. 276, 2015 WL 5708586. Statement of Interest at 5 note 23).

In this context of securing accountability, the request is supported by the holding in Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), which I argued and won before the Supreme Court of the United States. There in 1995 Solicitor General Drew Days filed an amicus brief and argued with me before the Court to support the granting of the Writ of Certioari. The Court issued the Writ reversing the USCA for the 4th Circuit and the US Dist Ct for ED VA, to reject then Attorney General Eric Holder and DOJ’s surreal argument and policy that there was absolute immunity even for the DEA agent’s acts while DWI and having sex in the moving vehical. Thus, the Court rejected Eric Holder’s knee jurk policy of absolute immunity from accountability for acts outside of scope of employement by ordering remand to an impartial court court to hold an evidentiary hearing before a jury of the evidence.

Similarly, here the request for a Satement of Interest in support of the attach Petition for Writ of Certioari is to obtain impartial judicial review by reversal of the the summary dismissal below of the Writ of Mandmaus and Prohibition evidencing a policy by the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia (see page i, ii, and iii of the attach Petition), to deprive the Citizens of the Commonwealth of an independent legal profession by not stopping the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) from operating as a “kangroo court” issuing void ab initio orders under unconstitutional court rules.

Compounding this defiance of the VA Const., and VA Code, is the record of a Class 2 felony to “resist the execution of the laws under color of authority” in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2 481 & 482 and VA Code §§ 18.2 499/500, by the VSBDB concerting to “combine, assocate, agree, [and] mutually undertake” a business conspiracy with Washington DC Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder et al to deprive the undersign of his business and profession by the VSBDB void ab initio order to disbar the undersign for litigating to enforce his statutory property rights, and rights as a father (see 2003 Request for investigation of collusion by DOJ and the courts to violate “zone of war” exception under Treaty ) (see page 8 of the attached Appendix) (See  Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., US Dist. Ct. ED VA 12 cv 663 JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013); See also Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, Washington Post, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC. Ct No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct 08-411(2008) (See Request in 2014 to US Attorneys for EDVA and DC, as well as FBI for the Investigation, Arrest, Indictment, and Prosecution for Eric Holder et a., misprision of a felony in violation of 18 U.S. §§ 4 & 241/242, 26 U.S.C. § 7214, and VA Code §§ 18.2 499/500.).

To answer any questions, have your staff contact me at (1.571.477.5350). Respectfully, Isidoro Rodriguez cc:   President Donald J. Trump, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20500

Filed July 13, 2020–IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, on Petition for A Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Featured

Tags

,

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

I.  Whether the 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution (“U.S. Const.”), the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and the integrity and independence of the Commonwealth’s judicial system under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const), and VA Code § 54.1-3915 & § 54.1-3935A (1950 to 2017), has been violated by the denial of the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition
confirming the pattern and practice since 2006:

First, of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court so to not hold the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s (“VSBDB”) accountable for usurping judicial authority and jurisdiction to disbar Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine?;

Second, of the systemic denial of access to a statutory jury trial under VA Code § 18.2-499 & 500 so to not hold the VSBDB accountable for participating, cooperating and assisting the business conspiracy of Washington D.C. Attorneys/Lobbyist Eric Holder et al. to injure Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez reputation and profession by the issuance of a void ab initio order?; and,

Third, of the systemic denial of access to a common-law jury trial so to not hold the VSBDB et al. accountable for malfeasance for the void ab initio order, as well as for lobbying to violate VA Const.’s amending procedures, to violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws, and to violate the prohibition on enacting special legislation granting the VSBDB immunity for a business conspiracy?

LIST OF ALL DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS WHICH HAVE SYSTEMICALLY DENIED ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT TO RECIPROCALLY ENFORCE THE VSBDB VOID AD INITIO ORDER..

1. Isidoro Rodriguez v. General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., S. Ct. VA No. 190579 (September 2, 2019); Fairfax County Circuit Court Case No. 2018-16227 (February 12, 2019).

2. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., US Dist. Ct. ED VA 12-cv-663-JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013), cert. denied 2014.

3. In the matter of Isidoro Rodriguez, US Sup. Ct. Docket No. D-02466 (May 26, 2010), cert. denied.

4. Isidoro and Irene Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 10691-09, cert. denied; and, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 11855-12, cert. denied 2014.

5. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jack Harbeston, and Eric Holder et al., US Dist. Ct. WD Wash. No. 11-cv-1601 (JCC).

6. Irene Rodriguez and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Douglas Shulman, et al., D.C. Cir. Ct. No. 11-cv-1183(JEB).

7. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, ML No. 2307 (December 14, 2011).

8. Isidoro Rodriguez v. US Tax Court, D.C. Cir. No. 10-1016, cert. denied, US Sup. Ct. No. 10-1066 (Closed, March 21, 2011).

9. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia Employment Commission, US Sup Ct. Docket No. 09-954 (Cert. Denied March 19, 2010), S. Ct. VA Record No. 092494, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0291-09-4.

10. Isidoro Rodriguez v. US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, (D.C. Cir. No. 08-7134) cert. denied No. 09-237 (November 2, 2009).

11. In the matter of Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., (4th Cir. No. 06-9518), cert. denied No. 08-942 (March 20, 2009), injunction denied (March 24, 2009).

12. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Standing Committee on Attorney Discipline, (3rd Cir. No 08-8037), cert. denied No. 08-1121 (Closed, May 18, 2009).

13. Isidoro Rodriguez v. US Court of Appeals for the 2nd  Circuit, (2nd Cir. No 08-90089); cert. denied No. 08-942 (Closed, July 31, 2009).

14. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct. 08-411(Closed, 2008).

15. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, U.S. Dist. Ct. for the E. D. VA, Docket No. 1:08-mc-00022, May 28, 2008.

16. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al., (S. Ct. No. 07-419, November 2, 2007); and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia, (Va. Sup. Ct No. 07-0283), cert denied Nos. 07-A142 and 07A370 (2007).

17. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Devis and VA State Bar, VA Sup Ct. No. 06052, cert. denied US Sup Ct. Nos. 06A619/06-875 (Closed, October 2006).

18. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Pereira, 163 F. Appx. 227 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 954 (2006).

19. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Guy Vander Jagt, et al., Sup. Ct. of Va. No 040941/040942, cert. denied, No. 04-867 (Feb. 28, 2005).

20. Isidoro Rodriguez v. HFP Inc., et al., 77 F. Appx. 663 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 903 (2004).

21. Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children et al., D.C. No. 03-120(RWR); D.C. Cir. No. 03-5092, cert. denied USSC No. 03-301 (2006).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

a. When Federal Question Raised.

Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) raised the federal questions in the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and its amendment at page 1 thru 15, filed on November 28, 2018, and on February 19, 2019 with the Fairfax Ct. Cir. Ct.  They were raised again in the Petition for Appeal to the S. Ct. VA on August 28, 2019, and during oral argument on February 21, 2020. The courts below never addressed the challenge to  the systemic denial of access to an impartial court, as well as the denial of the right to due process and equal protection of the laws in violation of the Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

b. Material Facts.

In 2003 Washington, D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder and Washington, D.C. Lobbyist Jack Harbeston (“Holder et al.”) violated VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23) by entering Virginia to “combine, associate, agree, and mutually” did file two VSBDB bar complaints to injure Rodriguez’s federal civil litigation practice, reputation, profession, right to employment and statutory property rights.

The two bar complaints state they were filed:

First, for Rodriguez litigating to enforce a statutory Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on treasure trove under VA Code § 54.1-3932 (1950) (App-10). See Isidoro Rodriguez v. HFP Inc., et al., 77 F. Appx. 663 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 903 (2004); Isidoro Rodriguez v. Guy Vander Jagt, et al., Sup. Ct. of Va. No 040941/040942, cert. denied, No. 04-867 (Feb. 28, 2005); Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995); Cooperativa Multiactiva de Empeados de Distribuidores de Drogas (Coopservir Ltda.) v. Newcomb, et al., D.C. Cir. No 99-5190, S Ct. No 99-1893 (2000); Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145 (1996) Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997); and,

Second, for Rodriguez litigating to enforce the rights of a father under Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Oct. 1980, T.I.A.A. No 11,670, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (App-7 and App-17) (“Treaty”), VA Code, and Joint Custody Agreement to protect his US citizen Son from being forced from Virginia in 2002 to a “zone of war” in the Republic of Colombia (App-17), Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children et al, D.C. No. 03-120(RWR); D.C. Cir. No. 03-5092, cert. denied USSC No. 03-301 (2006).

At the outset, Rodriguez challenged the judicial authority and jurisdiction of the VSBDB (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml). In response, in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23) the VSBDB did “combine, associate, agree, and mutually” participated in the business conspiracy by issuing in 2006 a void ab initio order to injure Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights.

Subsequently, as part of the business conspiracy Rodriguez was disbarred from federal practice from 2006 to 2010 by the summary reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch 137, 140 (1803), by the Office of the Clerk the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, DC and Federal Circuit, the U.S. Dist. Court for the ED VA, and U.S. Tax Court (page I, ii, iii).

Also, as part of the business conspiracy in 2006 Rodriguez was deprived of his property by: (a) the Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Tax Court’s reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order to declare “frivolous” and then to strike Rodriguez’s litigation expenses-to thereby assess “taxes greater then allowed by law,” See Isidoro and Irene Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 10691-09, cert. denied; and, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 11855-12, cert. denied 2014; and, (b) by the Virginia Employment Commission reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order to deny Rodriguez unemployment compensation benefits.

Based on this additional evidence of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court to assist the business conspiracy and violation of the Void Ab Initio Order, Rodriguez filed litigation under VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23). Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jack Harbeston, and Eric Holder et al., US Dist. Ct. WD Wash. No. 11-cv-1601 (JCC) (2011).  See Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct 08-411(Closed, 2008).

After the repeated summary dismissal’s refusing to stop the business conspiracy and the reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order, Rodriguez in 2012 file under VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23), as well as under Bivens and RICO, see Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., US Dist. Ct. ED VA 12-cv-663-JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013), cert. denied 2014.

But there too, the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. did summarily dismissed to again deny access to an impartial court: (1) by not disqualifying himself because the Judge’s wife was a member of the Defendant VSBDB; (2) by granting absolute immunity, by granting summary dismissal, and by granting a nationwide Federal prefiling injunction of any future litigation for violation of the VA Const, VA Code; and, (3) by holding a lack of jurisdiction in Virginia to enforce VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23)– despite the evidence that Holder et al. entered Virginia to file the two fraudulent VSBDB bar complaints. See also  Isidoro Rodriguez v. Devis and VA State Bar, VA Sup Ct. No. 06052, cert. denied US Sup Ct. Nos. 06A619/06-875 (Closed, October 2006); Isidoro Rodriguez v. Pereira, 163 F. Appx. 227 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 954 (2006).

Based on this additional evidence of the business conspiray and systemic denial of access to an impartial court,  Rodriguez did petition for redress of the grievances prior to the opening each January from 2010 to 2019 of the General Assembly for the VSBDB violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine (See 2010 Petition to VA General Assembly).

After receiving no response to the petitions for grievances fo six years, Rodriguez filed on May 15, 2016, a Complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, No. P-926-16 / MC-367-16, for violation of the right to due process and equal protection of the laws under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the absolute grant of immunity to government attorneys and judges. (See also January 2017 United Nations Complaint).

In response to these complaints, the VSBDB et al. used the cronyism and political influence in the legal profession of Virginia to surreptitiously lobby the General Assembly after 2017: (a) in violation of the prohibition on ex post facto laws, to enact a retroactive amendment adopting the 1998 unconstitutional S. Ct. VA Court Rules Part 6, § IV, ¶13 creating the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” and permitting the S. Ct. VA to appoint VSBDB members as judges (App-26); and, (b) in violation of the prohibition under Art. IV § 14, ¶3(18) VA Const. (See VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) (App-22) to enact special legislation granting the VSBDB immunity for the business conspiracies (See VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) (App-22) (see also General Assembly 2019 HB 2111, introduced on January 5, 2019, four (4) days after Rodriguez petitioned the Fairfax County members of the General Assembly).

Based on this evidence, Rodriguez filed below the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition to compel the VSBDB to either explain under what it acts as a “court” or to enjoin it usurping judicial authority (Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, Fairfax County Circuit Court, Case No. CL 2018-16433).  See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. General Assembly of the Virginia, et al., Fairfax County Circuit Court, Case No. CL 2018-16227).

In written and oral responses the VSBDB in obfuscated and failed to cite any  authority under VA Const., or VA Code for their sitting as a “court” and acting as “judges.”  But rather, the VSBDB obtusely assert in violation of the prohibitions under Art. VI § 5 VA Const. and VA Code § 54.1-3915 (1950 to present), that the delegation of rule making authority under VA Code § 54.1-3909 (1950) gave to the S. Ct. VA the power to issue court rules giving the VSBDB judicial authority and jurisdiction to create the VSBDB as a “court,” and to appoint VSBDB members as judges.

Furthermore, the VSBDB arrogantly defied the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by arguing that Rodriguez lacked standing to challenge the VSBDB 2006 Void Ad Initio Order. Without addressing this evidence of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court to violate the U.S. and VA Const., as well as VA Code, the Fairfax County Circuit Court issued a summary prefiling injunction order (App-2) and a summary dismissal order of the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition (App-4) on June 28, 2019.  The Petition for Appeal was refused by the S. Ct. VA on March 2, 2020 (App-1).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI

There has been repeated violation of the First, Fifth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, by Fairfax County Circuit Court’s systemic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by a jury: (1) so to not hold the VSBDB accountable for a void ab initio order usurping judicial power to assist Holder et al’s business conspiracy; (2) to not enjoin an ex post facto amendment (App-26); and, to not enjoin special legislation granting immunity (App-22).

I.  THE SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT.

A. Violations of the 5th and 14th Amendment to US Const., and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the systemic denial of access to an impartial court. 

The Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition Court is founded upon records (page i, ii, and iii) evidencing the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the systemic denial of access to an impartial court, the systemic denial to a statutory, and the systemic denial to a common law jury trial, so to not hold the VSBDB accountable for usurping of jurisdiction and judicial authority by the issuance in 2006 of the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order (App- 6) to further Holder et al.’ s business conspiracy.

This evidence of the willful violation of the limitations and prohibitions under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA., and VA Code VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950-2017), is confirmed by the VSBDB argument that under VA Code § 54.1-3909 (1950) delegation of rule making authority the S. Ct. VA had the power to issue rules establishing the VSBDB as a “court” and for the S. Ct VA to appoint VSBDB members as judges with jurisdiction to discipline an attorney.

Furthermore, VSBDB argument confirms the willful violation of the controlling 1923 precedent under Legal Club of Lynchburg v. A.H. Light, 137 VA 249, 430, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), citing Fisher’s Case, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835), that the power to either suspend or revoke an attorney’s license in all of Virginia, must be “conferred by statute,” although in a proper case a court does have inherent judicial power to suspend or annul the license of an attorney practicing only in that particular court. To repeat, for a court to have,

“[t]he power to go further and make suspension or revocation of license effective in all other court of the Commonwealth [this] must be conferred by statute.” (Emphases added).

Based on this holding the 1932 Acts of Assembly p. 139 (codified at VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950-2017)), was enacted to assist the judicial branch by establishing a decentralized attorney disciplinary system to give by statute the exclusive judicial authority and jurisdiction to discipline attorneys to the ninety-five (95) County Circuit Court and eleven (11) Court of Appeals (App-25). When Has the Supreme Court of Appeals Original Jurisdiction of Disbarment Proceedings, R.H.C. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jan. 1924), David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia, 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954)  Furthermore, under Art. VI § 5 VA Const. (App-21), and VA Code § 54.1 3915 (2050) (App-24) the S. Ct. VA was specifically prohibited from promulgating any court rules inconsistent with this decentralized attorney disciplinary system.VA Code § 54.1-3934 (1950) Legislative History to  1998 amendment to VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1998) .

Under VA Code § 54.1-3935C (1950-2017) the Virginia State Bar and by extension the VSBDB, was established only as,

“an administrative agency of the [S. Ct. VA] for the purpose of investigating and reporting [to the Circuit Court] violations of rules and regulations adopted by the court under this article.”

Therefore, the evidence confirms that no statute was ever enacted prior to the 2017 ex post facto legislation that amended VA Code § 54.1-3935 (1950-2017) to retroactively adopt the unconstitutional S. Ct. Va rules creating the VSBDB and vesting it with judicial power and jurisdiction as a “court”.

Consequently, benchmark of this action and all the past litigation (pages i, ii, and iii), has been to enforce the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under English common law as helin The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (KB 1613) that was incorporated as a cornerstone of United States jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch 137, 140 (1803).  There it was held that,

“[c]ourts are constituted by constitutional authority and they cannot act beyond the power delegated to them. if they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. they are not just voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.”  (Emphasis added)

This Court reconfirmed the Void Order Doctrine by holding that due process mandated that State court must assure the right of access to an impartial judicial branch based on the constitutional obligation on the courts to decide matters presented by litigants, because:

“With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821).

Regarding the mandate under the 5th and 14th Amendments, this Court held in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319, 325, 326 (1937), that the right to due process includes those fundamental liberties that are “implicit” in the concept of ordered liberty, such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed.”  To this end,

“[t]he Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested State tribunal in both civil and criminal cases.”  Marshal v. Jern Co, 446 US 238, 242 (1980).

Therefore to assure that nether a judge nor court are permitted to act outside of their jurisdiction and judicial authority the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine is incorporation into 5th & 14th Amendments guarantee due process by confirming that any State proceedings that is outside of constitutional or statutory judicial authority or jurisdiction is void ab initio and actionable.

The Court recognized that there is a requirement on both State and Federal court to have access to an impartial court to assure effective vindication of a separate and distinct right to seek judicial relief:

(a) for violation of the First Amendment’s Right to Petition Clause, California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 US 508, 513 (1972);

(b) for violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,  Murray v. Giarratano, 492 US 1, 11 n.6 (1989) (plurality opinion); Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 US 305, 335 (1985); and,

(c) for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 US 551, 557 (1987).

In accordance withprecedents this Court’s holding in Christopher v. Harbury, 536 US 403, 412-418 (2002), that to assert a claim of denial of access to an impartial court the claim must be first made in an underlying cause of action, the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition was filed in the Fairfax County Circuit Court against the VSBDB:

(a) to obtain judicial review of the VSBDB usurping judicial power and jurisdiction in violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1-3915 & § 54.1-3935A (1950-2017), to assist Holder et al.’s business conspiracy by issuance of a Void Ab Initio Order;

b. to obtain judicial review of the violation of the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const.;

c. to obtain judicial review of the violation of the mandate of separation of power between the General Assembly, and the S. Ct. VA and the Executive Branch by the ex post facto amendment to retroactively expand the power of the S. Ct VA. by adopting of the 1998 unconstitutional court rules creating the VSBDB and appointing VSBDB members as judges; and,

d. to obtain judicial review of the violation of the prohibition on enacting special legislation to grant immunity to the VSBDB as a private association.

This mandate of assuring access to an impartial State court is an integral part of due process restriction on the Judicial Branch.  As Patrick Henry observed in 1777,

Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny. (Emphasis added).

Consequently, the right to due process, and the right to equal protection of the laws mandate that when an individual or entity has neither constitutional authority, nor statutory authority, nor inherent legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any order, said order is void ab initio, and is a complete nullity from its issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner and cannot be reciprocally enforced by any governmental entity or court by either stare decisis or res judicata.    Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390, 402 (2007); Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51-52 (2001); Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705 (1925); Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, (1987).

Therefore, because the VSBDB has neither constitutional authority, nor statutory authority, nor inherent legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any valid order disbarring Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights (App-9), the VSBDB 2006 void ab initio order is a complete nullity from its issuance it may be impeached directly or collaterally at any time or in any manner. In that context, the systemic denial of access to an impartial Virginia and Federal court (page i, ii, iii), is a violation of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.  But the VSBDB void ab initio order issued as a “kangaroo court” was repeatedly reciprocal enforced by the abuse of the judicially created abstention doctrines of res judicata and stare decisis in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.  See Daniels v. Thomas, 225 F.2d 795, 797 (10th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 932 (1956); See also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462, 486-487 (1983); and, Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (March 7, 2011).

The VSBDB has willfully defied the 5th and 14th Amend., and the prohibitions under the VA Const., and VA Code, to assist Holder et al.’s business conspiracy, which was compounded by unlawful acts by government attorneys in the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

This must be rejected by the Court, because as prophetically observed by Adam Smith,

“[w]hen the judicial is united to the executive power, it is scarce possible that justice should not frequently be sacrificed to what is vulgarly called politics. The persons entrusted with the great interests of the state may even without any corrupt views, sometimes imagine it necessary to sacrifice to those interests the rights of a private man. But upon the impartial administration of justice depends the liberty of every individual, the sense which he has of his own security.” The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. I., Of the Expense of Justice, pp 200.

B. Systemic denial of the right to a jury trial of the evidence of malfeasance.

The Fourteenth Amendment, mandates, “the duty of every State to provide, in the administration of justice, for the redress of private wrongs.”  Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Humes, 115 US 512, 521 (1885).

To this end both the Seventh Amendment and Art. I § 11 VA Const. guarantee the right to a common-law trial for malfeasance. As early as The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (KB 1613), it was determined that the jury trial was one of the most important safeguards against arbitrary and oppressive governmental policies.

In this context, Thomas Jefferson observed in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789, that,

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by men, by which the government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.”

Later, In re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136 (1955) (Black, J.), the Court held,

“[O]ur system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. This Court has confirmed that all doubts should be resolved in favor of jury trials considering the strong federal policy favoring such trials and right under the Constitution.  Simler v. Conner, 372 US 221, 83 S.Ct. 609, 9 L.Ed2d 691 (1967).

See also, Grafton Partners LP v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 36 Cal 4th 944, 116 P.3d 479 (2005) (court finding a violation of the right to a jury trial under California Constitution-similar to VA Const. Art. I Section 11).

This common law right to a trial by a jury of the evidence of wrongdoing by acts outside the scope of authority was also confirmed in the 1995 case argued and won by Rodriguez against Eric Holder et al,’s policy of granting absolute impunity to government employees and judges for acts for outside of legal authority.  Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 US 417, 115 S.Ct. 2227, 132 L.Ed. 2d 375 (1995) (4th Cir USCA reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing before a jury to determine if the government employee acts DUI while having sex were within or outside the scope of employment).

The common law right to a trial by jury is augmented by the statutory right to a jury trial for a business conspiracy under VA Code §§ 499 & 500.  The existence of a business conspiracy is a jury question of facts-not for the court.  As explained in Commercial Business Systems v. BellSouth, 249 Va. 239 at 267-68 (1995), statutory conspiracy claim,

is a matter for determination by a jury. whether a conspiracy caused the alleged damaged ordinarily is a question for a jury. Ordinarily it is the function of a jury to determine whether and to what extent a plaintiff has been damaged. (Emphasis added)

The record below confirms the systemic denial of access to a trial by jury by the summary denial of motions filed under 7th Amendment U.S. Const., Art I § 11 VA Const., VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 and the common law, Rodriguez has been denied of his right due process and equal protection of the laws.  Therefore,  this Court must exercise its supervisory authority to assure access to an impartial jury trial to enforce the prohibitions and limitations under both VA Const., and VA Code.

As observed by Attorney General John Ashcroft,

it is in the federal government’s interest to have effective and fair state courts, lest litigants turn to federal courts to resolve matters properly within state court responsibilities.” November 2, 2003, Department of Justice Evaluation of the State Judicial Institutes’s Effectiveness to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.  (Emphasis added)

II.  VIOLATION OF ART. XII § 1 AND ART. 1 § 9 VA CONST. BY THE EX POST FACTO AMENDMENT ADOPTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES.

A.  Denial of the 1st Amend Right to Petition for Grievances.

Under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. only the Citizens of Virginia can amend the Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., to expand the power of the S. Ct VA.  to permit the S. Ct. VA  to create the VSBDB as a court and to appoint VSBDB as judges.

This legislative power granted by the Citizens to the General Assembly can neither be delegated nor modified without the Citizens ratifying an amendment to the VA Const.

Also, under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., the VSBDB is prohibited from lobbying the General Assembly to enact an ex post facto law in 2017 to adopt the 1998 court rules to have retroactive effect.

In Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 138 (1816), Chief Justice John Marshall defined an ex post facto law, as

“one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.”

Therefore, an ex post facto law has an impact on past transactions. See Ex parte Garland, 71 US (4 Wall.) 333, 377 (1867); See also McCoy v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 169 SE 174, 169 SC 436 (1954). In Calder v. Bull, 3 US ( 3 Dall.) 386, 390, 397 (1798), this court determined that the ex post facto clause only prohibited the passage of criminal or penal measures that had a retroactive effect.  But, too this court held that attorney discipline proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and subject to the prohibition under the ex post facto clause, Ex parte Garland, 71 US (4 Wall.) 333, 381 (1867) (companion case to Ex parte Garland, supra.). In both decisions, the court confirmed that an attorney has certain procedural and substantive rights to ensure due process and equal protection of the laws. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 US (4 Wall.) 277 (1806); In Re Ruffalo, 390 US 544, 550-51, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117,121-23 (1968); see also Mississippi State Bar v. Young, 509 So. 2d 210, 212 (Miss. 1987); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 345 A.2d 616, 620 (Pa. 1975).

This right to due process is mandated because attorney discipline proceedings are highly penal character.  However, in violation of the above VA Const. restrictions, and Rodriguez’s right under the First Amendment and Art. I VA Const. to petition for grievances (See 2009 Presentatoin to Fairfax County member of General Assembly ):

first, the VSBDB lobbied for the enacting in 2017 of the ex post facto amendment of VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950 to 2017) (App-25) to retroactively adopt in violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., and Art. XII § 1 of the VA Const. the 1998 unconstitutional court rules establishing the VSBDB as a “court” and to appoint VSBDB members as judges (VA Code § 54.1-3935 (2017)) (App-26), and,

second, the VSBDB lobbied for the enacting in 2017/2019 in violation of Act. IV § 14, &3(18) VA Const. special legislation aimed to grant immunity to the VSBDB as a private association VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) and 2019 HB 2111.

Thus the Amended Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition was properly filed based this evidence that VA Code § 54.1-3935 (2017) was enacted to conceal the ongoing violations of VA Const and VA Code by retroactively

“[c]onform[ing] the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” (App- 28)

to the unconstitutional 1998 Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 establishing the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” and to permit the S. Ct. VA to appoint VSBDB as “judge” with jurisdiction and judicial authority to discipline an attorney. Under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., the General Assembly was and is without power to circumvent the limitations and prohibitions under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const.

Thus the 2017 ex post facto amendment is highly penal since it obfuscates and seeks to deprives Rodriguez of his right of action challenging the business conspiracy and the violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

III.  VIOLATION OF ART. IV § 14, ¶3 (18) VA CONST. PROHIBITION ON ENACTING SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO GRANT IMMUNITY.

Under Art. IV, § 14 ¶ 3 (18) VA Const., the General Assembly is prohibited from  enacting any special, or private law,

“[g]ranting to any private corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive . . .  immunity”.

The VSBDB is not a court, nor a state agency nor a corporation. It is an administrative agency of the S. Ct. VA within the unincorporated professional organization of the Virginia State Bar.  Neither governmental or judicial immunity applies to them, thus they are not clothed with immunity.

Therefore, therefore courts below have denied access to an impartial court by not holding the VSBDB accountable for lobbying for the special legislation [VA Code § 8,01-223.2 (2017) (App-22) and General Assembly 2019 HB 2111], granting immunity for the business conspiracy.

CONCLUSION

The evidence confirm the denial of the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition as an integral part of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court:

(a) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for the void ab initio order to assist Holder et al.’s business conspiracy;

(b) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying to violate the amending procedure under Art. XII §1 VA Const.;

(c) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying to violate the prohibition of ex post facto law under Art. I, 10, cl. 1 U.S. Const., and Art. I § 9 VA Const.;

(d) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying to violate the separation of power under Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., to retroactively “conform the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1932-2009)] for the disciplining of attorneys” to the 1998 unconstitutional VA  S. Ct. Rules Part 6, § IV, ¶ 13; and,

(e) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying for special legislation to not be held accountable for assisting and furthering the business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 by Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder et al.

For the above reasons, the petition must be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________

Isidoro Rodriguez

Former Member of the Bar

2671 Avenir Place, Apt 2227

Vienna, Virginia 22180Telephone: 571.477.5350

Application for an Extension of Time Within Which To file a Petition for A Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia Due to COVID-19 Virus

Featured

Tags

                                                          No. ________________

                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                                       ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ,

PETITIONER,

                                                                           VS.

                               VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD,

RESPONDENT.

                                                 _____________________________

Application for an Extension of Time Within Which

To file a Petition for A Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia

____________________________

APPLICATION TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS JR. AS CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

______________________________

APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

            Under Rule 13.5 of the Rules of this Court, Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) requests that the time for a petition for writ of certiorari be extended for 61 days to and including July 31, 2020.  The Supreme Court of Virginia issued itsorder on March 2, 2020 (see App. A-3, infra). Rodriguez’s petition, therefore, would be due on Sunday, May 31, 2020 (per S.Ct. Rule 30.1 by June 1, 2020) absent an extension. Rodriguez is filing this application at least ten days before that date.

JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction over the unpublished order of the Supreme Court of Virginia (“Sup Ct VA”):

first, under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) based on the systemic denial of access to an impartial court of unlawful official business conspiracy in violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”), the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and the First, Fifth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under the controlling precedent of both Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002)and Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch 137, 140 (1803);

second, based on the Court’s supervisory authority under Article III to the U. S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) due to the demand for impartial “judicial inquiry” to investigate, declare and enforce the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine and the VA Const., for, “liabilities as they[stood] on the present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist” as evidenced by the retroactive enactment in 2017 of ex post facto legislation and 2019 of special legislation to give immunity, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-482. (1983).

REASONS JUSTIFYING AN EXTENTION OF TIME

Rodriguez respectfully requests a 61-day extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the decision of the Sup. Ct. VA, due to extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 virus in both the Republic of Colombia and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

On February 21, 2019, an Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition was filed to order the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) to either explain under what authority it is acting as a “court” or cease its violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Art. VI §§1, 5, & §7 Const. VA., VA Code § 54.1-3915 & § 54.1-3935 (in effect from 1950 until 2017), and VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500. Also, the Writ sought to enjoin: first, the violation of Art. XII § 1, Art. I § 9, Art. IV § 14, ¶3(18) VA Const. by the retroactive amendment in February 2017 of VA Code § 54.1-3935 (in effect 1950 to 2017) to ex post facto adopt the 1998 Sup. Ct. VA Rules; and, second, the violation of the Art. IV § 14, ¶3(18) VA Const. by the 2019 special legislation providing immunity to the VSBDB.  The issues were raised in argument before Fairfax County Circuit Court, in the Petition for Appeal filed on August 21, 2019, and an argument to the Sup. Ct. VA Chief Justice et al. on February 21, 2020.

On February 24, 2020, Rodriguez flew to his office in the Republic of Colombia for a business trip, with a planned return to the United States on March 24, 2020.

On March 5, 2020, Rodriguez received Sup. Ct. VA order of March 2, 2020, and immediately sought to return to the United States.

On March 17, 2020, the President of the Republic of Colombia declared a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 virus, ordering a complete shutdown of all business and air travel to/from the Republic of Colombia until May 11, 2020.

Similar emergency measure due to the COVID-19 virus has been taken by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia to last until June 30, 2020.

Although Rodriguez has made reservations to return to the United States on May 14, 2020, the flight is uncertain.  Furthermore, all printing operations in both Colombia and Virginia are suspended, given the extraordinary circumstances making it impossible to either print/bind the Petition before May 31, 2020.

CONCLUSION

            For the reasons described above, Rodriguez respectfully requests that this Court grant an extension of 61 days, up to and including July 31, 2020, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case.

Dated: April 27, 2020                                                         Respectfully Submitted,

                                                                    Isidoro Rodriguez

Former Member of the Bar of This Court

Email: business@isidororodriguez.com

U.S. Mobil: 1.571.477.5350\CO Mobil: 011-575-300.658.7220

South American Office:                                                 U.S. Residence:

World Trade Center                                                           2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227

Calle 76 No. 54-11, Office 313                                         Vienna, Virginia 22180

Barranquilla, Colombia                                                   

Argument to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia et al, in Isidoro Rodriguez vs. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (No 191136). Isidoro Rodriguez vs. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (No 191136).

Featured

Tags

,

February 11, 2020, at 1420 hrs. in lieu of filing a Reply Brief:

            GOOD AFTERNOON. I REQUEST PERMISSION FOR MY COURT REPORTER (IT WAS GRANTED).

            MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. 

            I AM ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ.  I ARGUE TO SEEK REVERSAL, AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD ENJOINING THEIR SITTING AS A KANGAROO COURT BASED ON THE ISSUANCE OF A VOID AB INITIO ORDER.  THE VOID ORDER WAS ISSUED AS THE LINCHPIN OF A PROHIBITED STATUTORY BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST/ATTORNEY ERIC HOLDER ET AL.   TO DAMAGE MY BUSINESS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, REPUTATION, PROFESSION AND RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT BY REVOKING MY LAW LICENSE IN RETALIATION FOR LITIGATING TO ENFORCE MY STATUTORY PROPERTY RIGHT IN A CHOATE ATTORNEYS LIEN AND RIGHTS OF A FATHER TO PROTECT MY U.S. CITIZEN SON FROM BEING TAKEN FROM A “ZONE OF WAR” IN FY 2000 IN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA.  THIS IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER ART. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA CONST., AS WELL AS VA CODE § 54.1-3935 (1950 TO 2017). (SEE Complaint against the Offices of the United States Attorney for the E.D. of Virginia and District of Columbia, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation for Refusing to Investigate/Charge Eric Holder et al. for a Business Conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499, 500, by acts of Malfeasance During the Obama Administration in Violations of Art. VI of the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

            THUS, THE BENCHMARK FOR THE WRIT ARE THE CONTROLLING PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT FROM 1835 TO 2007 MANDATING THAT PURSUANT TO ART. VI VA CONST. THE JUDICIAL POWER TO REVOKE A VIRGINIA LAW LICENSE WITH STATEWIDE EFFECT CAN ONLY BE BY STATUTE THAT WAS ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.  THUS, NO COURT CAN ISSUE COURT RULES IT POWER TO DISBAR AN ATTORNEY WITH STATEWIDE EFFECT INCONSISTENT WITH RIGHT UNDER VA CODE.  SEE EX PARTE FISHER, 6 LEIGH (33 VA.) 619 (1835) 624-25 (1835), LEGAL CLUB OF LYNCHBURG V. A.H. LIGHT, 137 VA. 249 AT 250, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), AND IN RE: JOHATHAN A. MOSELEY, SUP CT. VA NO 061237 (2007).  THUS, THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS BASED ON THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE UNDER VIRGINIA CONST., VA CODE, AND CASE LAW,[1]   AS MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRUNCH 137, 140 (1803), STATES,

“[C]OURTS ARE CONSTITUTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND THEY CANNOT ACT BEYOND THE POWER DELEGATED TO THEM. IF THEY ACT BEYOND THAT AUTHORITY, AND CERTAINLY IN CONTRAVENTION OF IT, THEIR JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS ARE REGARDED AS NULLITIES. THEY ARE NOT JUST VOIDABLE, BUT SIMPLY VOID, AND THIS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL.

            ALL OF THE ABOVE COMMAND THAT WHEN AN ENTITY CREATED BY COURT RULES SUCH AS THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD HAS NEITHER CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, NOR STATUTORY AUTHORITY, NOR INHERENT LEGAL POWER, NOR JURISDICTION TO RENDER ANY ORDER.  THUS THE 2006 ORDER VOID AB INITIO IS A COMPLETE NULLITY FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUANCE AND MAY BE IMPEACHED DIRECTLY OR COLLATERALLY AT ANY TIME, OR IN ANY MANNER.  THIS PARTICULARLY BASED ON THE SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND COMMON LAW JURY TRIAL TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE OF MALFEASANCE.

            THEREFORE, THE WRIT SEEKS,

  • TO ENFORCE THE PROHIBITIONS AND MANDATES OF SEPARATION OF POWER UNDER I § 5 VA CONST.;[2]
  • THE WRIT SEEKS TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION UNDER ART. VI §§ 1[3], 5[4] & 7[5] VA CONST. WHEREIN THE CITIZENS GAVE ONLY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THE POWER TO IMPART JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND TO APPOINT JUDGES.
  • THE WRIT SEEKS TO ENFORCE VA CODE § 54.1-3915[6] & § 54.1-3935 (1950-2009),[7] ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSISTENT WITH THE VA CONST. RESTRICTIONS TO ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE DECENTRALIZE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM IN EACH IN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF VIRGINIA, IN TANDEM WITH THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS POWER UNDER VA CODE § 54.1-3934.[8]
  • THE WRIT SEEKS TO ENFORCE PROHIBITIONS OF 1 § 9 AND ART. XII § 1 OF THE VA CONST.,[9] TO ENJOIN THE EX POST FACTO AMENDMENT OF VA CODE § 54.1-3935 TO ADOPT RETROACTIVELY IN 2017 THE 1998 COURT RULES THAT BESTOWED JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ON THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD AND APPOINTED THEM AS JUDGES.
  • THE WRIT SEEKS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, COMPENSATION UNDER VA CODE §§ 18.2-499 & 500[10] FOR A RETALIATORY BUSINESS CONSPIRACY TO REVOKE MY LAW LICENSE FOR LITIGATING TO ENFORCE MY STATUTORY PROPERTY RIGHTS IN A CHOATE VA CODE ATTORNEYS LIEN ON A CLIENT’S CONTRACT CLAIM TO TREASURE TROVE VALUED AT $18 BILLION DOLLARS AND LITIGATING TO ENFORCE MY RIGHTS AS A FATHER UNDER JOINT CUSTODY AGREEMENT/VA CODE TO PROTECT MY U.S. CITIZEN SON FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST HIS WILL IN 2000 TO A “WAR ZONE” IN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA.  THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD ISSUED THE 2006 VOID AB INITIO ORDER TO DAMAGE MY BUSINESS, REPUTATION, PROFESSION, EMPLOYMENT, AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO 2006 FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

            THE GOVERNMENT SURREALLY NEITHER DENIES NOR CHALLENGES THE ABOVE EVIDENCE OF THEIR WILLFUL CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AND THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST/ATTORNEY ERIC HOLDER ET AL.

            RATHER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MANDAMUS ACTION BELOW OPPOSES THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT BASED ONLY ON THE DELEGATION OF COURT RULEMAKING AUTHORITY UNDER VA CODE § 54.1-3909, AND ARGUING LACK OF STANDING DESPITE THE CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST AND VA CODE.

            THIS IN AND OF ITSELF IS A CONFIRMATION OF THE WILLFUL CHARACTER OF THE VIOLATION OF THE VA CONST. AND VA CODE, AS WELL AS THE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BY VIOLATION OF THE DECENTRALIZED SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER THE 1950 VA CODE BY COURT RULES THAT UNLAWFULLY BESTOWED JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPOINTING OF ITS MEMBERS AS JUDGES TO DISCIPLINE ATTORNEYS.

            FINALLY, THE WRIT IS SOUGHT BASED ON THE RECORD OF A SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY TO ENFORCE THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER VA CONST. AND VA CODE.  THE LITIGATION RECORD FROM 2004 TO THE PRESENT PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF THIS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING :

            FIRST, U.S. DIST. CT. HON JUDGE GIBNEY (EDVA) FAILURE TO RECUSE HIMSELF BASED ON THE FACT THAT HIS WIFE IS A MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD, AND ISSUING IN 2013 A SUMMARY ORDER GRANTING IMPUNITY, PRIOR RESTRAINING, AND ISSUING A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION DEPRIVING ME OF ACCESS TO ANY FEDERAL COURT SO FOR THE VIOLATIONS OF VA CONST AND VA CODE AND BUSINESS CONSPIRACY.

            SECOND, IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONS FOR REDRESS BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (HTTP://T.CO/SLV7PZ3ZD5), FROM 2017 TO 2019:  (A) THERE WAS ENACTED AN EX POST FACTO AMENDMENT TO VA CODE § 54.1-3934 TO ADOPT RETROACTIVELY THE 1998 COURT RULES; AND, (B) THERE WAS ENACTED VA CODE § 8.01-223.2 AS SPECIAL LEGISLATION IN VIOLATION OF ART. IV § 14, ¶3(18), TO GRANT IMMUNITY TO THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD FROM ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY (SEE ALSO 2019 HB 2111).

Isidoro Rodriguez

Rodriguez and Rodriguez

World Trade Center Barranquilla

Cale 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313

Barranquilla, Colombia S.A.

(571)477-5350

      [1] SEECOLLINS V. SHEPHERD, 274 VA. 390, 402 (2007); SINGH V. MOONEY, 261 VA. 48, 51‑52(2001); BARNES V. AM. FERTILIZER CO., 144 VA. 692, 705 (1925); ROOK V. ROOK, 233 VA. 92, 95 (1987).

    [2] ARTICLE I § 5 VA CONST. “THAT THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH SHOULD BE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT; AND THAT THE MEMBERS THEREOF MAY BE RESTRAINED FROM OPPRESSION, . . ..”

                         ART. VI § 1 VA CONST., STATES IN RELEVANT PART THAT JUDICIAL POWER SHALL BE VESTED, IN “COURTS OF ORIGINAL OR APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUBORDINATE TO THE SUPREME COURT AS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY FROM TIME TO TIME ESTABLISH.”

      [4] ART. VI § 5 VA CONST., STATES THAT ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE RULES, “SUCH RULES SHALL NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL LAW” ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

                [5] ART. VI § 7 VA CONST., STATES IN RELEVANT PART THAT JUSTICES OF, “ALL OTHER COURTS OF RECORD SHALL BE CHOSEN BY . . .  THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. . ..

[6] VA. Code § 54.1‑3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations. ‑‑‑Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Supreme Court shall not promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; nor shall it promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys. In no case, shall an attorney who demands to be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for the violation of any rule or regulation adopted under this article be tried in any other manner.

[7] VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2007). Procedure for revocation of license.

  1. If the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any circuit court of this Commonwealth observes, or if a complaint, verified by affidavit is made by any person to such court, that any attorney has. . . violated the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, the court may assign the matter to the Virginia State Bar for investigation. Upon receipt of the report of the Virginia State Bar, the court may issue a rule against such attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked. If the complaint, verified by affidavit, is made by a district committee of the Virginia State Bar, the court shall issue a rule against the attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked.
  2. If the rule is issued by the Supreme Court . . . the rule shall be returnable to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. At the time, the rule is issued by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice shall designate three circuit court judges to hear and decide the case. . .. In proceedings under this section, the court shall adopt the Rules and Procedures described in Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13 of the Rules of Court.

    [8] VA Code § 54.1-3934. Revocation of license by Board.  The Board of Bar Examiners may, for good cause, revoke any license issued by it at any time before there has been a qualification under it in any of the courts of this Commonwealth.  Code 1950, § 54-72; 1988, c. 765.

    [9] ARTICLE XII § 1 VA CONST. AMENDMENT, STATES, THAT ANY AMENDMENT TO THIS CONSTITUTION ARE TO BE REFERRED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THEN IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO SUBMIT SUCH PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITIZENS FOR APPROVAL.

    [10] VA Code § 18.2-499. Combinations to injure others in their reputation, trade, business or profession; rights of employees.         A. Any two or more persons who combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of (i) willfully and maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever or (ii) willfully and maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful act, shall be jointly and severally guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Such punishment shall be in addition to any civil relief recoverable under § 18.2-500

Any person who attempts to procure the participation, cooperation, agreement or other assistance of any one or more persons to enter into any combination, association, agreement, mutual understanding or concert prohibited in subsection A of this section shall be guilty of a violation of this section and subject to the same penalties set out in subsection A.

            VA Code § 18.2-500. Same; civil relief; damages and counsel fees; injunctions. — (a) Any person who shall be injured in his reputation, trade, business or profession by reason of a violation of § 18.2-499, may sue therefor and recover three-fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable fee to plaintiff’s counsel; and without limiting the generality of the term, “damages” shall include loss of profits. . .. 

DEMOCRAT PARTY’S VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA’S CONSTITUTION

Featured

Dear Mr. President,

On the issue of turning Virginia back to voting for you and all the other Republican Candidates, which I have been writing to you based on my litigation for violation of the Virginia Constitution (see www.isidororodriguez.com), below is additional evidence of the ongoing pattern and practice of the Democrat Party actions in furtherance of socialist policy to deprive citizens of access to an impartial legal profession and court willing and able to enforce the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

“Pelosi argues Trump’s defense team should be disbarred” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-defense-team-disgraced-themselves-deserve-disbarment-pelosi-suggests

In summary, the Democrat Party socialist must do away with the separation of the power grid of limitation and prohibition to change our Republic division of authority.  To do this, the Democrat Party must have an obsequious legal profession who are more interested in fees and cronyism than protecting the right of all citizens under Virginia and the U.S. Constitution.

Respectfully Submitted,

Isidoro Rodriguez

Cc:       Ms. Ronna Romney McDaniel, Chairwoman

Republican National Committee

            310 First St SE             Washington, DC 2000

         Mr. Jack Wilson, Chairman Republican Party of Virginia
            D. Obenshain Center
            E. Grace Street
            Richmond, Virginia 23219

PETITION FOR STATEMENT OF INTEREST-BASED ON ACTS OUTSIDE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT

Featured

Tags

, ,

September 1, 2019

President Donald J. Trump

Attorney General of the United States the Hon. William Barr        

U.S. Attorney John H. Durham

Re:   PETITION FOR STATEMENT OF INTEREST-BASED ON ACTS OUTSIDE OF    LEGAL AUTHORITY AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT

Greetings,

      The Inspector General’s finding confirms two issues: first, both President Trump and his campaign were the targets of government attorneys and employees acts outside of legal authority or scope of employment; and, second, despite the Federal Tort Claims Act, current government policies that were established by Eric Holder et al., during the Clinton and Obama Administrations –makes it difficult, if not impossibility, to obtain accountability.

      But, to enforce Constitutional and statutory limitations and prohibitions to there must be a procedure to secure accountability against government attorneys and employees for their willful and negligent acts.

      Therefore, I filed my May 20, 2019 Petition for a Statement of Interest and Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court of Virginia in Isidoro Rodriguez V. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 190579 (see my presentation to the panel on July 22, 2019 (Exhibit 1)).  I also submit this letter as an additional Petition for a Statement of Interest and Amicus Brief in Petition for Appeal, Isidoro Rodriguez V. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, No______ filed July 28, 2019 (Exhibit 2).

      These Petitions for a Statement of Interest are filed because it is clear that the Common Law and the statutory mandates under the Virginia Tort Claims Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act have been willfully violated by the Judicial Branch granting “impunity” and absolute immunity to government attorneys for willful acts outside of legal authority and scope of employment. (See Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. VA 12‑cv‑663‑JAB (4/12/2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013) (the Ho. Judge Gibney issued against me a nationwide Federal injunction against any actions challenging the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Const., VA Code).  Judge Gibney violated the limitations and prohibitions under the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States in defiance of the holding in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 140 (1803).  This is evidence of the use of political influence and cronyism in retaliation against me for being an independent federal litigator by the systemic denial of access to an impartial judiciary.  I note that Thomas Jefferson warned 225 years ago,

“[t]he germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body – working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

      This underscores James Madison warning that,

“[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”  The Federalist Papers, No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788

      Consequently, I renew my request for a Statement of Interest is filed in the above-cited actions before the Supreme Court of Virginia.  This based on my prevailing arguments in Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (U.S. Supreme Court reversed/remanded for an evidentiary hearing before an independent jury under the Common Law and 7th Amend. U.S. Const. to decide the issue of alleged acts outside the scope of employment).

Respectfully,

Isidoro Rodriguez

E-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com

Isidoro Rodriguez v. Viringia State Bar Disciplinary Board, VA Supreme Court Petition for Appeal 08/28/2019, for Violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under VA Const. and Va Code.

Featured

Tags

, , ,

   ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

  1. The Circuit Court erred in granting a Demurrer based on Rodriguez’s lack of standing to obtain a Writ to the VSBDB for their Common Law Conspiracy and Statutory Business Conspiracy under VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500, to damage Rodriguez’s law practice, reputation, profession, statutory property right in defiance of the mandates of separation of power and due process under the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Art. I § 5, Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 and Art. XII §1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.), and in willful disobediance of the liitations and prohibitions under VA Code § 54.1‑3915 & § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009), as alleged in the Verified Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition, and Exhibits A thru V.

These errors were preserved in the June 28, 2019, transcript at page 6, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 15, and the objections to the Circuit Court’s Order of June 28, 2019 the dismissing the Petition.

  1. The Circuit Court erred in granting a Demurrer based on holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to prohibit the Common Law Conspiracy and Statutory Business Conspiracy in violation VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500, by the VSBDB issuing a Void Ab Initio Order in defiance of the restrictions under Art. I § 5 VA Const., Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009), as alleged in the Verified Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and Exhibits A thru V.

These errors were preserved in the June 28, 2019, transcript on page 13, 14, 15 and 16, and the objection to the Circuit Court’s Order of June 28, 2019 dismissing Petitioner’s Petition.

  1. The Circuit Court erred in enjoining Rodriguez in the Fairfax County Circuit Court and summarily dismissing Rodriguez’s motion to enjoin the VSBDB’s Common Law Conspiracy and Statutory Business Conspiracy per VA Code § 18.2-500, as alleged in Rodriguez’s Verified Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition, Motion and Brief.

This error was preserved in the June 28, 2019 transcript at pages 18 and 19, as well as objected to on the Circuit Court Orders of June 28, 2019.

NATURE OF THE CASE/MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW

            On November 19, 2018, and April 4, 2019, Rodriguez filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County a Verified Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition with Exhibits A thru V (“Plaintiff’s Ex.” Trial Court Record), for an order to the VSBDB to either:

            (a) advise under what authority did it in 2006 revoke Rodriguez’s license for litigating to enforce his statutory property rights in a choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien under VA Code § 54.1-3932 (2017), and statutory rights as a Father (Plaintiff’ s Ex. D Trial Court Record); or,

            (b) vacate the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order and direct to stop violations of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Art VI VA Const, and VA Code § § 54.1-3915 & 54.1-3935.

            On November 28, 2018, the VSBDB refused to accept service by the Sheriff. On December 26, 2018, Rodriguez filed a Verified Motion for Publication based upon the VSBDB refusal of service or the VSBDB not naming an agent for service.

            On January 2, 2019, the Circuit Court issued an Order of Publication. The Washington Times filed a Notarized Affidavit confirming publication on January 10, 17, 24, and 31, 2019. On February 8, 2019, Rodriguez filed a motion for Default Judgement.

            On February 21, 2019, the VSBDB filed its opposition to the Writ. The VSBDB filed Demurrers on April 23, and June 13, 2019. In both pleadings and at oral argument on June 28, 2019, the VSBDB admitted it was not a “court,” and its members were not “judges”, but that the VSBDB interpreted VA Code § 54.1-3909 and § 54.1-3910(1950-2017) to authorize it as a “parallel” administrative agency to a “court” with the power to revoke Rodriguez’s license for his litigating to enforce his statutory rights  (Transcript page 2 second ¶,and page 8, Plaintiff’s Ex. D Trial Court Record).

            Based on the VSBDB admitted circumventing the limitation and prohibitions under Art. VI § 5 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1-3915 and & § 54.1-3935(1950-2016), on June 10, 2019, Rodriguez per VA Code § 18.2‑500 filed a Motion to Enjoin the VSBDB.

            However, before the VSBDB filed any opposition to Rodriguez’s motion, on June 28, 2019, the Circuit Court granted the VSBDB demurrer, summarily denied Rodriguez’s motion, and enjoined Rodriguez from filing any future actions in Fairfax Circuit Court.   Rodriguez noted specific objections under the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Const, and VA Code.  On July 16, 2019, a Notices of Appeal and Notice of the Transcript were filed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

            Based on the open express distrust of the drafters of the VA Const. regarding the motive of individuals in government generally, and the Judicial Branch expressly,[1] the Citizens mandated the separation of power between the General Assembly and the Supreme Court of Virginia by ratifying Art. I § 5 VA Const.[2]

            To this end under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const. the Citizens granted only to the General Assembly the power to grant judicial authority,[3] to establish lower courts,[4] and to appoint judges.[5]

            To assure those restrictions be maintained the Citizens ratified Art. XII § 1 VA Const., reserved to themselves the authority to amend these constitutional limitations, prohibitions, and restrictions.

            Consistent with these restrictions the General Assembly passed in 1932 the Act of the General Assembly p. 139 (“Act of 1932”) (codified as VA Code § 54.1-3915 (2017) § 54.1-3935(1950-2016) to establish in each County a decentralized attorney disciplinary system to be administered by courts.

            Disregarding the Act of 1932, Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Lawyer Eric Holder and Jack Harbeston (“Eric Holder et al.”) in 2003 filed two complaints with the VSBDB against Rodriguez for his litigating: (a) to enforce his statutory Choate Virginia Attorneys’ Lien under VA Code § 54.1-3932 on a Sea Search Armada contract claim to Treasure Trove valued at USD 18 Billion on the sunken Spanish 1707 Galleon San Jose; and, (b) to enforce his rights as a Father under VA Code and Joint Custody Agreement.

            Rodriguez challenged the VSBDB subject matter jurisdiction for noncompliance with the Act of 1932, and because Eric Holder et al.’s VSBDB complaints were the linchpin of a Common Law Conspiracy and Statutory Business Conspiracy VA Code 18.2-499 & 500 to damage Rodriguez’s international litigation practice, reputation, profession, statutory property rights.[6]

            Disregarding these objections, on November 27, 2006, the VSBDB issued a Void Ab Initio Order revoking Rodriguez’s license for litigating to enforce his statutory rights (Plaintiff’s Ex. D and G Trial Court Record).[7]

            Rodriguez filed civil tort actions for damages based on the VSBDB void order in both Virginia and Federal Courts violating the Common Law, Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., VA Code 18.2-499 & 500, and Virginia Tort Claims Act VA Code ‘ 8.01-195.  But, Rodriguez was systematically denied access to an impartial common law trial and court to challenge the VSBDB void order violation of the Act of 1932 and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine (Plaintiff’s Ex. G Trial Court Record), use to assess taxes in 2006 higher than permitted by striking litigation expenses (Plaintiff’s Ex. Qi and Qii Trial Court Record), and use in 2006 to deny Rodriguez unemployment compensation benefits (Ri, Rii, T, and U).

            But, Rodriguez has been systematically denied access to an impartial common law jury trial and the court to secure accountability for the VSBDB void ad initio order and Business Conspiracy.(Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. VA 12‑cv‑663‑JAB (4/12/2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013) (nationwide Federal pretrial injunction of actions for violation of the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine);[8] (Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct. App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct. 08-411(2008); and (Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Hon. Hassell et al., Fairfax Cir. Ct. No. CL-2007-15396, VA S. Ct. No. 081146, cert. denied 08-574 (2008)) (Complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) (P-926-16)); (Petition with the United Nations Committee on Human Rights for grant of “impunity”); (Petitions to the General Assembly, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D,  G I Trial Court Record)   http://www.isidororodriguez.com).

            In response, Rodriguez filed petitions of grievances for the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Const., and VA Codewith his NOVA representatives to the General Assembly (See http://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5). But, rather than investigating and taking corrective action in accordance with the Act of 1932:

             O On January 9, 2017, in violation of Art. XII § 1 VA Const. amending procedures and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. separation of power and due process, the General Assembly enacted VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) to ex post facto retroactively “conform the statutory procedure [under the Act of 1932] for disciplining of attorneys” to the 1998 rules issued by the Supreme Court of Virginia; and,

            O On January 9, 2019, House Bill No 2111 was introduced as Special Legislation in violation of Art. IV §14 ¶4(18) VA Const., by seeing to give immunity to the VSBDB from civil liability for the Business Conspiracy.

            The VSBDB admitted: first, to it being neither a “court” nor its members “judges” in apparent “conflict” with the mandates of VA CODE §§ 54.3915 (2017) & 54.1 3935 (1950-2016), and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine; and, second, to interpreting VA CODE §§ 54.3909 & 54.1 3910 (2017) to  establish it as a “parallel” centralized attorney disciplinary administrative agency in conflict with the limitations and prohibitions under ART. I §§ 5 & 9 VA Const., ART. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA CONST., & ART. XII § 1 VA CONST. (VSBDB Brief in Support of Demurrer June 12, 2019, at page 2 second ¶ and oral argument) (See Brief in Opposition May 28, 2019, page 1, 11; See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. The General Assembly of Virginia, et al., VA Sup Ct Record No. 190579, Response in Opposition to the Petition at page 2 second full paragraph; Transcript of 02/21/2019 hearing pages 33 and 34, Fairfax Ct Cir Ct No 2018-16227, Responsive Pleading to Petition, page 5, (December 18, 2018).

            On June 28, 2019, disregarding the above evidence, the Circuit Court granted a demurrer, etc.

                                              AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT            

I.       THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DEMURRER HOLDING THAT PETITIONER ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ (“RODRIGUEZ”) LACKED STANDING FOR A WRIT TO THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD (“VSBDB”) FOR VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST. AND VA CODE. (Assignment of Error No. 1)

A. The Standard of Review Is De Novo.

            “The legal question presented by a circuit court’s decision to sustain a demurrer requires the application of a de novo standard of review.” Cline v. Dunlora South, LLC, 284 Va. 102, 106, 726 S.E.2d 14, 16 (2012) (citing Glazebrook v. Bd. of Supervisors of Spotsylvania County., 266 Va. 550, 544, 587 S.E.2d 589, 591 (2003)). “On appeal, a plaintiff attacking a trial court’s judgment sustaining a demurrer need only show that the court erred, not that the plaintiff would have prevailed on the merits of the case.” Tronfeld v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Va. 709, 713, 636 S.E.2d 447, 449 (2006).

Rodriguez has Standing for a Writ

            The General Assembly responded to the holding in Legal Club of Lynchburg v. A.H. Light, 137 Va. 249, 250, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), citing Fishers Case, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835) (“[t]he power . . . make suspension or revocation of license effective in all other courts of the Commonwealth must be conferred by statute,” (Emphases added),[9] by enacting the Acts of Assembly p. 139 (“Act of 1932”) (codified as VA Code §§ 54.1-3915 (2017) & 54.1‑3935 (1950-2016)[10], under its exclusive power to grant judicial authority, establish courts, and appoint judges by establishing a County court decentralized statewide attorney disciplinary system. The General Assembly explicitly denied the Supreme Court of Virginia any power to directly discipline attorneys by requiring it to appoint a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals, City of Richmond.

            Finally, under Art. VI § 5 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1 3915 (1950-2017)[11]-the Supreme Court of Virginia was prohibited from promulgating court rules or regulations in “conflict” with VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2016).

            Under the Common Law, Sir Edward Coke stated “an action would lie for the conspiracy to issue and enforce a void order,” because,

[W]hen a Court has. . . no [judicial authority or] jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [not before a person who a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process.  Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), (Emphasis added); see also 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries 140 at 141.

            Regarding the Rodriguez standing for a Writ, consistent with this Virginia recognizes two tort claims for civil conspiracy – one under the common law and the second under statutory Business Conspiracy statute found in VA Code §¶ 18.2-499 & 18.2-500 of the criminal chapter of the Virginia Code – since the violation of § 18.2-499 is a class 1 misdemeanor.  VA Code § 18.2-500 (a) & (b) statutory Business Conspiracy statute provides for the specific remedy of mandatory three-fold damages, cost of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees, and an injunction.

            Thus, as early as 1888, the case of Crump v. Commonwealth, 84 VA. 927, 934, 6 S.E. 620, 624 (1988) recognized the viability of a claim for “a conspiracy or combination to injure a person in his trade or occupation is indictable.”  In 1933, Werth v. Fire Companies’ Adjustment Bureau, 160 Va. 845, 854, 171 S.E. 255, 258-59, cert. denied, 260 U.S. 659 (1933) (citation omitted), acknowledged the ability for a plaintiff to sue atcommon law for civil conspiracy in noting that:

A conspiracy consists of an unlawful combination of two or more persons to do that which is contrary to law or to do that which is wrongful and harmful towards another person.  It may be punished criminally by indictment, or civilly by an action on the case in the nature of conspiracy if damage has been occasioned to the person against whom it is directed. It may also consist of any unlawful combination to carry out an object not in itself unlawful by unlawful means. The essential elements, whether of a criminal or actionable conspiracy, are, in my opinion, the same, though to sustain an action special damages must be proved.

            Consistent with this Virginia’s Business Conspiracy statute-VA Code §¶ 18.2-499 & 18.2-500 was enacted.

            Turning to the evidence this action was filed because the VSBDB void ab initio order  was issued in furtherance of Eric Holder et al.’s Business Conspiracy in violation of VA Code § 18.2.499 & 550 to damage Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession, and property rights (Plaintiff’s Ex. D Trial Court Record). Also, the action was filed because the VSBDB void order was used in 2006 to assessed taxes greater than permitted by law and to deny unemployment compensation benefits.  Finally, the action was filed for violation of the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const.

Under, Howell v. McAuliffe, 788 S.E.2d 706 (Va. 2016), Rodriguez has standing because of these “sufficient interest” based upon the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine and “the parties will be actual adversaries.” Id., 788 S.E.2d at 713 (quoting Cupp v. Bd. of Supervisors, 318 S.E.2d 407, 411 (Va. 1984)).  Rodriguez needs only “demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,” to assure a court, “that the issues will be fully and fairly developed.” Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 371 (2001).

The standard is easily satisfied given the extensive record of Rodriguez challenges to the VSBDB void order issued to aid and abet Holder et al. Common law and statutory Business Conspiracy by violating the separation of power under Art. I § 5 & 9 VA Const., and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & VA Const. (Plaintiff’s Ex. G and V Trial Court Record).

The injury and damage to Rodriguez are “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 460, and both concrete and particularized to Rodriguez given the systematic denial of access to and impartial court and Common Law jury trial to challenge the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order.

Therefore, the Circuit Court erred to holding the Rodriguez lack standing by failing to comply with the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine given the particularized damages by the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order violating Art. I §§ 5 &9 VA Const. and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const.  Rodriguez has standing and stated a cause of action where relief to challenge and attacked at any time, Adirectly or collaterally@ can be granted both as an attorney and as a citizen of Virginia injured by the VSBDB void ab initio order. Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, (1987).

II.        THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DEMURRER BY HOLDING THAT THE COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FOR A WRIT TO THE VSBDB FOR A BUSINESS CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST. AND VA CODE. (Assignment of Error No. 2)

            It is a fundamental doctrine of due process under the common law, Art. I & VI of VA Const. VA Code § 54.1‑3935, and the 14th Amend to U.S. Const., that Rodriguez as the party adversely affected and damaged by the VSBDB void ab initio ordermust have his day before a validly constitutionally created impartial court and common law jury trial. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 140 (1803); Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 6 S Ct 1194 (1886).

This right to a Common Law trial by jury is guaranteed by the VA Const. and the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It gives subject matter jurisdiction to the Circuit Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus for acts outside the scope of employment and legal authority.  See Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995).

            Under the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine first discussed in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 140 (1803),

            “[c]ourts are constituted by authority, and they cannot beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not just voidable but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.”

            This is consistent with the twin doctrines of separation of power and due process within both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States republican system of government.

            In sum, an entity such as the VSBDB, having neither constitutional authority, nor legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any act or order, the 2006 VSBDB void order is void ab initio—as not lawful, not subject to stare decisis/res judicata, and not enforceable being a complete nullity from its issuance, and is to be impeached directly or collaterally at any time, or in any manner. See also, Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390, 402 (2007); Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51‑52(2001); Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705 (1925); Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, (1987).

            Virginia Civil procedures the Circuit Court has subject matter jurisdiction under VA Code §8.01-195.3, to hold judge or government attorney accountable for tort outside of the scope of employment or judicial authority or jurisdiction (relief from tort liability apply only to actions within “official capacity” and “acting legally within the scope of their employment,” Sayers v. Bullar, 180 Va. at 229 and 230, 22 S.E.2d at 12 and 13 (1942).

            Similarly, under the Business Conspiracy statute, the Circuit Court has subject matter jurisdiction to grant equitable relief to enjoin a criminal enterprise outside of legal authority.  Thus, under Christopher V. Harbury (01-394) 536 U.S. 403 (2002), 233 F.3d 596 (reversed and remanded), Rodriguez must have access to an impartial Circuit Court and common law trial by jury to challenge the VSBDB void order.

            Therefore, the Circuit Court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a Writ to secure accountability and removal of VSBDB for acts outside of their jurisdiction and legal authority.  This is logical since to enforce the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine a void order can be impeached directly or collaterally at any time, or in any manner by Rodriguez.  As explained in Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390 (2007),

            An order that is void ab initio is a complete nullity that may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner.  (quoting Singh v. Mooney, supra.) Furthermore “[a]n order is void ab initio rather than merely voidable, if ‘the character of the judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt'” (quoting Evans v. Smyth‑Wythe Airport Comm’n, 255 Va. 69, 73(1998); Morgan v. Russia and Triangle Assocs., L.L.C., 270 Va. 21, 26‑27, (2005).

See also Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705 (1925); Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95 (1987).

            As explained in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877),

Since the adoption of the [VA Const.] and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the validity of void judgments may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law. . . . To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution‑‑that is, by the law of its creation‑‑to pass upon the subject‑matter of the suit.” (Emphasis added)

            Thus, the Circuit Court committed reversible error by willfully obfuscating and refusing to comply with the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under VA Const. and VA Code.

III.        THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN ORDERING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST RODRIGUEZ AND DISMISSING RODRIGUEZ’S MOTION UNDER VA CODE §§ 18.2-500 TO ENJOIN THE VSBDB’S BUSINESS CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST. AND VA CODE. (ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3)

            Consistent with the intent of VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500, this Court in Gelber v. Glock, Record No. 160500 at p. 38, (June 22, 2017), confirmed that liability for civil liability is to spread “liability to persons other than the primary tortfeasor” once there is as here evidentiary proof that the underlying tort was committed by borrowing from Illinois law, to hold that “[t]he function of the conspiracy claim is to extend liability in tort beyond the active wrongdoers to those who have merely planned, assisted or encouraged the wrongdoer’s acts.” Id. at 38.  Almy v. Grisham, 273 VA. 68, 80, 639 S.E. 2d. 182, 188, (2007). 

            VA Code § 18.2-500 (a) & (b) provides for the specific remedy of mandatory three-fold damages, cost of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees, and an injunction.   

            Here the evidence is indisputable.  In 2006 the VSBDB issued a void ab initio order as the linchpin to Eric Holder et al. Common Law and statutory Business Conspiracy.  The VSBDB void order was also used in 2006 to deprive Rodriguez of his right: (a) not to be taxed higher than permitted by the Internal Revenue Code; and, not to be denied benefits unemployment benefits by the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Const. and VA Code.

            The VSBDB void order has damaged Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession, and property rights establishing the existence of the elements of both a Common Law Conspiracy and statutory Business Conspiracy by “concerted action, legal malice, and casually related injury . . . set[ting] forth core facts to support the claim.” Kayes v. Keyser, 72 Va. Cir. 549, 552 (City of Charlottesville 2007) (quoting Atlantic Futon v. Tempur-Pedic, Inc., 67 Va. Cir. 269, 271 (City of Charlottesville 2005)); see also M-Cam v. D’Agostino, Civil Action No. 3:05cv6, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45289, at **7-8 (W.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2005) (plaintiff’s allegation that the defendants combined to effect a “preconceived plan and unity of design and purpose, for the common design is the essence of the conspiracy”). (Emphasis added)

            Under VA Code §§ 18.2-500(b), Circuit Court has subject matter jurisdiction and the duty to protect Rodriguez from the VSBDB void ab initio order issued as part of a Eric Holder et al.’s Business Conspiracy. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714 (1877); See also Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)(“a void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect”) (Emphases added).  The validity of the VSBDB void order is at issue, it can be attacked in any court as exceeding legal authority under Art. VI VA Const. and the Act of 1932.  See Rose v. Homely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 S. Ct 343, 61 Led 608.

            Consequently, the Circuit Court erred in issuing a prefiling injunction preventing Rodriguez from seeking redress and erred in dismissing Rodriguez’s motion for the immediate issuance of an injunction under VA Code § 18.2-500(b),[12] to enjoin the VSBDB void ab initio order depriving Rodriguez of procedural and substantive right to due process and equal protection of the laws. In Re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550-51, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226 (1968); see also Mississippi State Bar v. Young, 509 So. 2d 210, 212 (Miss. 1987); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 345 A.2d 616, 620 (Pa. 1975); See Commercial Bus. Sys. Inc. v. BellSouth Serv. Inc., 249 Va. 39, 48, 453 S.E.2d 261, 267 (1995) (citing Middlesboro Coca-Cola v. Campbell, 179 Va. 693, 702, 20 S.E.2d 479, 482 (1942)).

                                                                CONCLUSION                                               

         The VSBDB void ab initio order and record of the Fairfax Courty Circuit Court’s systemic denial of access to an impartial judiciary by defying the limitaiton and prohibitions under the VA Cosnt. and VA Code confirms the wrongdoing by government attorneys and judges, as well as the Virginia Bar Association.  The Virginia Judicial Branch has permitted a Common Law and Statutory Business Conspiracy to damage Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession, and statutory property rights.

This evidence of retaliation against Rodriguez for being an independent advocate by the use of political influence and structural cronyism underscores the dangers warned by James Madison, that,

“[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”  The Federalist Papers, No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788

          The record evokes the regrettable history of the sorry acts of German judges, lawyers and law school’s in the 1930’s violating the rights of citizens under the German Constitution–which was a crucial part in aiding both the rise of the National Socialist Party and the in human acts under German law, because,

the murder of the six million Jews and other persecuted minorities was done completely within the framework of German law.” Professor Michael Bazyler, The Legacy of the Holocaust and Lessons for Today: Research for a New Textbook Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law.

            Thus, this Court must grant review, and remand to enjoin the VSBDB void order.

Dated: August 28, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

Isidoro Rodríguez

(571) 477-5350; E-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com


      [1] Patrick Henry wrote, “[p]ower is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny. (Emphasis added)

            [2] Article I § 5 VA Const. “That the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Commonwealth should be separate and distinct; and that the members thereof may be restrained from oppression, . . ..”

            [3] Article VI, § 1. Judicial power; jurisdiction. — The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested . . . [in] courts of original or appellate jurisdiction subordinate to the Supreme Court as the General Assembly may from time to time establish.

            [4] Article VI, § 5. Rules of practice and procedure. The Supreme Court shall have the authority to make rules…, but such rules shall not be in conflict with the general law as the same shall, from time to time, be established by the General Assembly. (Emphasis Added)

[5] Article VI, § 7.  Selection . . . of judges.  The justice of the Supreme Court of shall be chosen by a vote of the . . . General Assembly. . ..  The judge of all other courts of record shall be chosen by the . . . General Assembly . . ..

      [6] Eric Holder retaliated against Rodriguez for: Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (reverse and remand for a common law evidentiary hearing before a jury of the acts outside the scope of employment by negligently DWI and having sex); See also Cooperativa Multiactiva de Empeados de Distribuidores de Drogas (Coopservir Ltda.” v. Newcomb, et al., D.C. Cir. No 99-5190, S Ct. No 99-1893 (2000) (challenge to Clinton’s Bill of Attainder); see also Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) and Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145 (1996) (violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Right to Financial Privacy (1978).

      [7] The VSBDB void ab initio order was affirmed. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia, (Va. Sup. Ct No. 07-0283, VSB Docket Nos. 04-052-0794 and 04-052-1044), cert denied Nos. 07-A142 and 07A370 (2007).  See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al., (S. Ct. No. 07-419, November 2, 2007).

            [8] The action against Jack Harbeston was summarily dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction–despite entering Virginia to conspire with Eric Holder to the VSBDB bar complaint (Footnote 3 and 4).

      [9] When Has the Supreme Court of Appeals Original Jurisdiction of Disbarment Proceedings, R.H.C. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jan. 1924), pp. 246-248; David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954).

      [10] VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2007). Procedure for revocation of license. “A. If the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any circuit Court of this Commonwealth observes, or if a complaint, verified by affidavit is made by any person to such court, that any attorney has…violated the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, the court may assign the matter to the Virginia State Bar for investigation. Upon receipt of the report of the Virginia State Bar, the court may issue a rule against such attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked. . ..” (Emphasis added)

            [11] VA. Code § 54.1‑3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations.‑Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article [§ 54.1‑3909 & § 54.1‑3910], the Supreme Court shall not promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; nor shall it promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys. (Emphasis added)

            [12] The “extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction is appropriate in the instant case given the extensive record of willful oppression under color of law, obstruction of justice, and systematic denial access to a common law trial by jury to consider the evidence of a violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., VA Code and the Void Ab Initio Order  Doctrine. ��� �

ORAL ARGUMENT TO SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PANEL FREDERICKSBURG, VA August 22, 2019, ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ v. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA ET AL., NO. 190579

Featured

GOOD MORNING, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.

I AM ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ.  MY BENCHMARK FOR ARGUING FOR THE GRANTING OF THE WRIT WAS SET IN 1964-MORE THAN 55 YEARS AGO-WHEN I TOOK THE OATH TO JOIN THE U.S. MILITARY.  THIS OATH NEVER ENDED TO DEFEND OUR REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AGAINST BOTH “FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES.

THUS I AM SEEKING REVERSAL AND REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THIS DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT ACTION FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE VA CONST. AND VA CODE, AS WELL AS THE COMMON LAW EXCEPTION TO THE USE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR ACTS OUTSIDE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF RES JUDICATA UNDER PER MARBURY V. MADISON AND VIRGINIA CASES, BECAUSE RESPONDENTS ACTS IN DEFIANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ARE VOID AB INITIO.

THIS IS CONFIRMED BY RESPONDENTS’ OWN ADMISSION:

FIRST, INTERPRETING VA CODE §§ 54.3909 & 54.1 3910 (2017) AS THE BASES FOR ESTABLISHING THE VSBDB AS A “PARALLEL” CENTRALIZED ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY IN DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF THE LIMITATION AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE MANDATES OF SEPARATION OF POWER AND DUE PROCESS OF ART. I §§ 5 & 9, ART. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA CONST, & ART. XII VA CONST.;

            SECOND, ADMITTING THAT THE VSBDB IS NEITHER  A “COURT” NOR ITS MEMBERS “JUDGES” AS REQUIRED UNDER THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE  AND IN “CONFLICT” WITH VA CODE §§ 54.3915 & 54.1 3935 (1932-2009).

BASED ON RESPONDENTS’ ADMISSIONS IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMIND THE COURT:

  • THAT THE ACT OF 1932 ESTABLISHED A DECENTRALIZED COURT BASED ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM WITH “COURT” HAVING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION PER VA CODE §§ 54.3915 & 54.1 3935 (1932-2009).
  • THAT ART. VI § 1 RESTRICTS THE POWER TO GRANT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND CREAT COURTS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY[i];
  • THAT ART. VI § 5 PROHIBIT THE COURT FROM PROMULGATING RULES IN “CONFLICT” WITH VA CODE;[ii]
  • THAT ART. VI § 7 RESTRICTS ON THE POWER TO APPOINT JUDGES TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY;[iii]
  • THAT UNDER ART. XII §1 VA CONST., ONLY THE CITIZENS OF VIRGINIA, CAN AMEND THE VA CONST’S SEPARATION OF POWER AND THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER ART. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA CONST.  

DESPITE THESE PROHIBITIONS, THE CIRCUIT COURT GRANTED PROTECTION TO RESPONDENTS FROM ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR ACTS OUTSIDE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY BASED ON VARIOUS GROUND BUT ESSENTIAL THE DOCTRINES OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND RES JUDICATA.

BUT LOGICALLY AND LEGALLY NONE OF THESE GROUNDS CAN EXTEND “IMPUNITY” TO RESPONDENTS FOR THEIR ADMITTED WILLFUL ACTIONS VIOLATING THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE VA CONSTITUTIONS REPUBLICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  THERE CAN BE NO GRANT OF “IMPUNITY” FROM CHALLENGES BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION OF THE VA CONSTITUTIONS BECAUSE NEITHER A VA STATUTE NOR COURT RULE CAN SUPERSEDE THE LIMITATION AND PROHIBITION UNDER THE VA CONSTITUTION.

THIS IS BECAUSE ANY OTHER RULE OF LAW WOULD MAKE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SUBSERVIENT TO RESPONDENTS WILLFUL UNLAWFUL ACTS. SEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KUHNLEIN, 646 SO.2D 717 AT 721 (FLORIDA SUPREME COURT 1994),

THEREFORE, THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN ITS SYSTEMATIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND IMPARTIAL COMMON LAW JURY TRIAL TO SECURE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESPONDENT VSBDB 2006 VOID AB INITIO ORDER (PLAINITT’S EX D) AIDING ERIC HOLDER ET AL.’S COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY BUSINESS CONSPIRACY VA CODE 18.2-499 & 500 TO DAMAGE MY BUSINESS, REPUTATION, PROFESSION, AND STATUTORY PROPERTY RIGHTS.

THIS SYSTEMIC DENIAL IS ADDITIONALLY CONFIRMED BY THE EVIDENCE THAT RATHER THAN TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION AS REQUESTED FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST., AND VA CODE, FROM 2003 TO 2018 THE RESPONDENT OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, RESPONDENT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, AND RESPONDENT GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PARTICIPATED IN THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY:

FIRST, VIOLATING OF ART. XII § 1 VA CONST., BY ENACTING AND SIGNING ON JANUARY 9, 2017, VA CODE § 54.1 3935 (2017) TO EX POST FACTO RETROACTIVELY “CONFORM THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCIPLINING OF ATTORNEYS” TO 1998 COURT RULES THAT “CONFLICT” WITH ART. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA CONST. AND VA CODE §§ 54.3915 & 54.1 3935 (1932-2009); AND,

SECOND, VIOLATING ART. IV §14 ¶4(18), BY MY REPRESENTATIVE DELEGATE MARCUS SIMON (HOUSE DISTRICT 53), ON JANUARY 9, 2019 INTRODUCING HOUSE BILL NO 2111 AS SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO GIVE IMMUNITY TO RESPONDENTS FROM CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY.

            THIS EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT RESPONDENTS’ COMPOUNDED THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY A CLASS 2 & 6 FELONY TO “RESIST THE EXECUTION OF THE LAWS UNDER COLOR OF AUTHORITY.” (VA CODE §§ 18.2‑481 AND 482).

FOR THESE REASONS THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED:

FIRST, BY VIOLATING THE COMMON LAW EXCEPTION TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR RESPONDENTS ACTS OUTSIDE THE SPHERE OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, SCOPE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT BY THEIR DEFIANCE OF ART. I §§ 5 & 9, ART. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7, ART. XII § 1 VA CONST., BY THE ENACTMENT OF VA CODE § 54.1‑3935 (2017) TO RETROACTIVELY EX POST FACTO ADOPT THE 1998 COURT RULES ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF VA CODE § 54.1‑3915 (1950-2017), VA CODE § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009), AND THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE.

SECOND, BY NOT IMPANELLING A SPECIAL GRAND JURY TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE EVIDENCE OF CLASS 2 & 6 FELONY UNDER VA CODE §§18.2-481 & 482 TO “RESIST THE EXECUTION OF THE LAWS UNDER COLOR OF AUTHORITY” AND MISDEMEANOR BUSINESS CONSPIRACY UNDER VA CODE 18.2-499 & 500.

THIRD, BY VIOLATING THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE BY USE OF RES JUDICATA.

FOURTH, BY GRANTING RESPONDENT’S DEMURE BASED ON A MISNOMER, LACK OF STANDING AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.

FIFTH, BY HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT GENERAL ASSEMBLY AS AN ART. III AND VI VA CONST. ENTITY IT CANNOT BE SERVED UNDER COURT-ORDERED PUBLICATION VA CODE §§ 8.01-316(B) & 318.

REGARDING THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS I RESPECTFULLY REMIND THE COURT THAT PATRICK HENRY, WHO WROTE,

“[P]OWER IS THE GREAT EVIL WITH WHICH WE ARE CONTENDING. WE HAVE DIVIDED POWER BETWEEN THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND ERECTED CHECKS AND BALANCES TO PREVENT ABUSE OF POWER. HOWEVER, WHERE IS THE CHECK ON THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY? IF WE FAIL TO CHECK THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY, I PREDICT THAT WE WILL EVENTUALLY LIVE UNDER JUDICIAL TYRANNY.” (EMPHASIS ADDED)

IN THAT CONTEXT THE WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENTS’ CONCERTED UNLAWFUL ACTS TO DENY CITIZENS OF VIRGINIA ACCESS TO AN INDEPENDENT LEGAL PROFESSION WILLING AND ABLE TO LITIGATE AGAINST STATE ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VA CONST. MANDATES OF SEPARATION OF POWER AND DUE PROCESS.

I CLOSE AND MOVE FOR THE EMPANELING OF A GRAND JURY, AND FOR AN INJUNCTION OF VA CODE § 54.1‑3935 (2017).  I ALSO MOVE FOR THE LIFTING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT’S INJUNCTION TO PERMIT THE THE FILING OF AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES BEFORE A COMMON LAW JURY BASED ON THE 2006 VSBDB VOID AB INITIO ORDER.

SUBMITTED BY ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ

      [i] Article VI, § 1. Judicial power; jurisdiction. — The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested . . . [in] courts of original or appellate jurisdiction subordinate to the Supreme Court as the General Assembly may from time to time establish.

            [ii] Article VI, § 5. Rules of practice and procedure. The Supreme Court shall have the authority to make rules…, but such rules shall not be in conflict with the general law as the same shall, from time to time, be established by the General Assembly. (Emphasis Added)

[iii] Article VI, § 7.  Selection . . . of judges.  The justice of the Supreme Court of shall be chosen by a vote of the . . . General Assembly. . ..  The judge of all other courts of record shall be chosen by the . . . General Assembly . . ..

PRESS RELEASE: SUIT AGAINST GOV’T ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES FOR VIOLATION OF THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION

Tags

, ,

            On February 11, 2020, in Isidoro Rodriguez vs. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (No 191136) I argue before a panel of the Supreme Court of Virginia

            I am challenging the government’s surreal argument that the Supreme Court of Virginia under the VA Code § 54.1-3909, had the power to not comply with the restrictions under Art. VI § 5 of the VA Const. and VA Code § 54.1-3915 to disregard the decentralized County Circuit Court attorney disciplinary system established in 1950 under VA Code § 54.1-3935 (1950-2009).  Thus, the government argues that the Court lawfully created a centralized system under its control by issuing Court Rules to defy the limited delegation of authority of the Court to regulate the professional conduct of attorneys and law students.

            Therefore, I seek a Writ of Mandamus to enjoin the violation of Art. VI § 1 of the VA Const. by unlawful Court Rules that created the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board as a kangaroo court with judicial authority.

            However, the record confirms the “systemic denial of access” to an impartial common law jury trial and County Court to hold government attorneys accountable for a business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 that damaged my law practice, reputation, profession and right to employment since 2003 and for violating the limitations, prohibitions, and separation of powers under Art. VI and XII of the VA Const., and by breaking the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

            Subsequently, this business conspiracy was oddly confirmed and compounded by the evidence of the Office of the Governor, Office of Attorney General, members of the General Assembly, and the Courts violation of the duty to enforce the limitation, prohibitions, and separation of power under our Virginia and U.S. Constitutional mandate under our Republican form of Gov’t. by their colluding:

            a. in February 2017 to violate Art. 1 § 9, Art. VI § 5, and Art. XII § 1 of the VA Const. to enact ex post facto amendment to VA Code § 54.1-3935 (1950-2009) retroactively adopt the unlawful 1998 Court Rules giving itself judicial authority; and,

            b. in March 2017 to violate Art. IV § 14, ¶3(18) to enact VA Code § 8.01-223.2 to grant immunity to the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board from accountability for the business conspiracy (See 2019 HB 2111).   (See www.isidororodriguez.com)

            The results of these unlawful court rule, ex post facto VA Code, and efforts to grant immunity has been enacted as a policy to deny citizens of an independent legal profession able/willing to challenge the abuse of power by Government attorneys and judges acting outside the scope of authority.  Consequently, the Writ of Mandamus must be issued to the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board.

Isidoro Rodriguez (571)477-5350