This blog is founded on the proposition that citizens must act to compel members of the U.S. Congress and the Virginia Assembly to investigate and  possibly impeach judges of the Judicial Branch, and the U.S. Tax Court for abuse of court rules in violation of the Void ab Initio Order Doctrine so to deny access to an impartial trial by jury of malfeasance.

Consistent with seeking accountablility for the abuses by the oligasrghy of government attorneys and employees, including judges, I share with you for consideration a piece recently published by Washingtonpost.com WonkBlogg that states the following:

“With a an incendiary battle ahead over who will replace Justice Antonin Scallia, it’s worth asking why we don’t subject Supreme Court justices to limited terns or mandatory retirement ages, as most countries do?”

“Supreme Court justices get lifetime appointments. Scalia died last week at 79 after serving more than 29 years.”

“Norm Orstein of the American Enterprise Institute likes the idea of an 18-year term limit, saying it would to some degree lower the temperature on confirmation battles by making the stakes a bit lower.”

“Legal analyst Jeffery Toobin said framers of the Constitution, which provides for lifetime appointments, didn’t envision justices serving three decades.  The Constitution, he noted, was written when life tenure meant living into your 50s, because that’s what life expectancy was.”

“Another reason cited for term limits: People generally are much sharper in their 40s, 50s and 60s than in their 70s and 80s.”

“In 2015, two-thirds of Americans supported a 10-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, according to a Reuters-lpsos poll.  Only 17 percent said they supported life tenure.”

Could lifetime terms end?  Most legal scholars believe a constitutional amendment would be needed.  that’s a high bar, but not an insurmountable. one.” by Christopher Ingraham.

 

 

A Petition to Congress Jan 9 2016  B Jan 25 2015 Memorandum in Support of Petition 3. Notice to President of Rep. of Colombia Jan 3 2015 of Att Lien

The Hon. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, 2309 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

Dear. Chairman Goodlatte,

I submit my petition to you as a member of Virginia’s Delegation to Congress and as Chairman of the House of Representative Judiciary Committee because it concerns the rights of all citizens of Virginia and to protect my property right in my Virginia Attorney’s Lien on Sea Search Armada’s (“SSA”) claim to treasure trove recently confirmed located by the Pres. of Colombia and valued at $18 Billion USD.[1]  Thus, I request an investigation and if warranted impeachment of the Hon U.S. Dist. Judge (E.D. VA) John A. Gibney, Jr., due to his systematic denial of access to a trial by jury of the evidence of malfeasance and business conspiracy by his summary dismissal and prior restraint enjoining my filing any future suit for damages, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. VA 12‑cv‑663‑JAB).

I underscore that the petition is consistent with doctrine of separation of power by seeking enforcement of the U.S. constitutional limitation and prohibitions, as well as the Seventh Amendment’s ban on Judge Gibney’s power to deny access to an impartial trial by jury of the evidence of malfeasance and business conspiracy.  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.”  Furthermore, the petition is consistent with the Tenth Amendment’s mandate on you to assure the enforcement of the limitations and prohibition under VA Const. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7, VA Code §§ 54-1-3915 and 54-1-3935, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, because the petition seek redress:

• For the usurping of legislative power by the surreptitious use of Supreme Court of Virginia rules to replace the decentralized attorney disciplinary system created under VA Code § 54-1-3935, with a centralized system under the court’s control by it establishing the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “kangaroo court,” and naming its members as “judges” (see https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5); [2] and,

• For the business conspiracy to deprive me of my business, profession, and property in violation VA Code §§ 18.2‑499 and 500, by the affirming of the VSBDB void ab initio order disbarring me for litigating to enforce my statutory rights (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf): (i) in my choate VA Attorney’s Lien for fees owed for service as Legal Representative of SSA since 1988;[3] and, (ii) as a father under joint custody agreement and Treaty to protect my 13 year-old U.S. citizen son from being forced from Virginia to the “zone of war” in Colombia in 2002 (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).[4]

I assert that the above acts of malfeasance and business conspiracy are motivated in retaliation for my serving U.S. and Virginia citizens for more than 30 years as an independent advocate capable and willing to challenge unlawful government actions and policies.[5]  In short, the use of the VSBD void ab initio order confirms that, “[t]here is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …”– U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982). [6]  Seldom has there been such clear and extensive evidence of government attorneys and employees, including judges, conspiring to violate the mandate of separation of power under the limitations and prohibitions of the VA Const. and VA Code.[7]

Thus, action by Congress is mandated for as Thomas Jefferson observed more than 200 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.”

Respectfully,

Isidoro Rodríguez

[1] In Sea Search Armada vs. the Republic of Colombia,  the court wrote, Aprior opinion noted that the plaintiff can obtain no more than A$2 billion to $8.5 billion,….@ Sea Search Armada, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 275

[2] To hold VA government attorney and employees, including judges accountable for malfeasance a separate petition has been filed with each Member of the VA General Assembly (see http://www.isidororodriguez.com).

[3] Surreally, the Judge Gibney, Jr., held that there was no jurisdiction in Virginia over SSA, thereby assuming away the business conspiracy by SSA entering Virginia to file the fraudulent VSBDB complaint.

[4]Once able, my son returned to Virginia in 2007, to graduate from VA Tech, and now resides in Northern Virginia.

[5] The motive for the acts of malfeasance and business conspiracy against me by affirming the void ab initio order is not limited to financial interests in conflict with my property rights, but, too are in retaliation for my past successful litigation against unlawful government acts and policies, i.e. Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (DOJ surreally argued that a DEA agent outside of the US was not negligent for causing a car accident while driving drunk and having sex); Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93‑6019 and 96‑6145 (interception without a warrant of all fund transfers to Colombia for more than two months); Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (Banks and DOJ liable for unlawful interception of wire communication and access to account information without a warrant); and Cooperative Multiactive de Empeados de Distribuidores de Drogas Coopservir Ltda. v. Newcomb, et al., D.C. Cir. No 99‑5190, S Ct. No 99‑1893 (DOJ=s issuance of unlawful bill of attainder under War Powers Act).

[6] “Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy,” Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 451 (1928). See RICO complaint against government attorneys and judge http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/sea-search-armada-annandale-virginia-c477026.html.

[7] Misprision of treason is defined pursuant to VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, as the, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority,” which if proved, “, shall be punishable as a Class 2 felony.

 

1. Constitutional Limitations and Prohibitions on the Supreme Court of Virginia

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the violation of the limitation and prohibitions defining separation of power would create a “despotic government.”  Notes on the State of Virginia 196 (1787).  Also, James Madison explained, “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether one, a few, or many, whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced as the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist No. 47, Washington Square Press, page 103 (Emphasis added).  They both understood that the clear lessons from history show that,

Once certain checks and balances are destroyed, and once certain institutions have been intimidated, the pressure that can turn an open society into a closed one-turn into direct assaults; at that point events tend to occur very rapidly, and a point comes at which there is no easy turning back to the way it used to be.  Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot, p. 14, Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2007.

Therefore, to protect the people, both the Virginia Constitution, as well as the United States Constitution, confirmed that all government power was derived from the consent of the govern–We the People.

As to the need of constitutional checks on the Judicial Branch, Patrick Henry, wrote,

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.

Consequently, it is safe to argue that these constitutional draftsmen openly advocated a deep distrust of the motive of individuals in government generally and the Judicial Branch specifically.

Therefore, they mandated that separation of power to serve as “distribution grids, apportioning authority. . . .” D. Arthur Kelsey, The Architecture of Judicial Power: Appellate review & Stare Decisis, Virginia State Bar, Virginia Lawyer October 2004, 13.^[1]  In short, separation of power between and among entities in government fractures power in innumerable ways to assure independent review of any violation of either the constitution.

VA Const. VI §§ 1,[i] and 7,[ii] diffused the power of the Judicial Branch thereby limiting the risk of creating dangerous nodes of power within it by mandating compliance with the VA Const. and VA Code.  To this end, VA Const. VI § 5,[iii] and VA Code § 54-1-3915,[iv] prohibit the Judicial Branch from the promulgation of court rules in conflict with both substantive rights and statutory rights (in short the courts cannot enact legislation).   Also, VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, confirm no judicial immunity for acts outside of authority or jurisdiction by making it a Class 2 felony for, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority.”  Finally, there is an absolute right to civil jury trial for malfeasance.[2] See Ames E. Pfander, Federal Courts, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme Court’s Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1433 (2000).  Confirming this, Chief Justice Marshall wrote,

“[We judges] 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, 6 Wheat, 264, 404 (1816) (Emphasis added)

1. VA General Assembly Established Decentralize Attorney Disciplinary System

The General Assembly enacted the Acts of Assembly 1932. p. 139, by use of its exclusive constitutional power to create the jurisdiction of courts and to appoint judges, to establish a decentralize attorney disciplinary system, so to give statewide effect to each court’s inherent authority to discipline an attorney before that particular court.[3]

The General Assembly granted only limited delegated authority for the Supreme Court of Virginia to prescribe, adopt, promulgate and amend rules and regulations of unprofessional conduct, not inconsistent with rights under either VA Const and/or VA Code.  Under these Rules the Virginia State Bar was formed, with powers of investigating complaints against attorneys, to be exercised by a Council and Investigating Committee in each county. The function of the Investigating Committee was comparable to that of a grand jury, as a fact-finding board.  It had no power to suspend, reprimand, or disbar an attorney.  Only after the issuance of a rule against an attorney, filed with the county clerk’s office of the county court having jurisdiction, was,

the court issuing the same shall certify the fact of such issuance and the time and place of the hearing thereon, to the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals, who shall designate two judges, other than the judge of the court issuing the rule, of circuit courts or courts of record of cities of the first class to hear and decide the case in conjunction with the judge issuing the rule . . . . (Emphasis added)

The constitutionality of the decentralized attorney disciplinary system was upheld in Campbell v. Third District Committee of Virginia State Bar, 179 Va. 244, 18 S.B.2d 883 (1942).  There it was held evident from the provisions of the statute that the General Assembly merely intended to create a new tribunal with general jurisdiction to hear and determine disbarment proceedings and did not intend to delegate to the tribunal any legislative powers.   Appeal from the judgment of the three-judge court was a matter of right to the Supreme Court of Virginia.  Also the attorney who had been disbarred had the right to apply to the Governor for reinstatement, if at the time of application for such relief, “there is no other adequate remedy for obtaining it at law.” See VA Code of 1950, 12-45.

Later VA Code ‘ 54.1‑3935 (A) and (B), was enacted to reconfirm the decentralized attorney disciplinary system’s use of the jurisdiction of each county’s Court of Appeals, and circuit courts to discipline an attorney.  VA Code §54.1-3935(B), confirmed that Supreme Court of Virginia has no power to discipline attorneys statewide, by requiring it to use a three-judge panel formed in the City of Richmond, and rejected creating a centralized attorney disciplinary system under the direct control of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

• Evidence of Malfeasance by the Supreme Court of Virginia Establishing a Centralized Attorney Disciplinary System Under its Rules

In flagrant disregard of the General Assembly’s mandated decentralized attorney disciplinary system established under VA Code § 54.1‑3935, and in violation of the limitation and prohibitions under VA Const. Article VI, § 1, 5, and 7, and VA Code § 54.1‑3915, the Supreme Court of Virginia promulgated Rule Part 6, ‘ IV, &13, to establish a centralized attorney disciplinary system under its control by creating the VSBDB as “court” and appointing its members as “judges,” with jurisdiction to discipline attorneys.  Thus, the VSBDB was established as a “kangaroo court,” by the issuance of court rules usurping the legislative power of the General Assembly to obfuscate and assume away the exclusive jurisdiction of each county Court of Appeals and circuit court to discipline attorneys with statewide effect.

1. Malfeasance by Violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to affirm the VSBDB void ab initio order issued without authority or jurisdiction

Pursuant to 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), the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine mandates that when an entity did not have the constitutional authority, legal power, or jurisdiction to render any order, said order is void ab initio–as a complete nullity from its issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner.  A void ab initio order or judgment is invalid at the moment of issuance, to be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it.  A void ab initio order may be attacked in any court at any time, “directly or collaterally.” A void ab initio order has none of the consequences of a valid adjudication, i.e. stare decisis and res judicata. “It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. … It is not entitled to enforcement … All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur. Judgments ” 44 and 45.

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), established the benchmark as to the challenge of any void ab initio order.  There the court stated,

“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).

 Therefore, a void ab initio order cannot be affirmed by the use of either stare decisis or res judicata.

1. Business Conspiracy to Systematically Deny Access to an Impartial Jury Trial

It is a fundamental doctrine of due process and the common law that a party to be affected by a void personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194.  Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in an impartial court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.

However, the evidence confirms that the VSBDB issued a void ab initio order by being a “kangaroo court” that disbarred me for litigating to enforce my statutory rights.  The evidence confirms that on appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia “[resisted] the execution of the laws under color of authority,”[4] by affirming the VSBDB’s void ab initio order.  Finally, the evidence confirms a conspiracy to conceal illegal acts by systematically denying access to an impartial trial by jury of the evidence of malfeasance and the business conspiracy to injure my business, profession and right to employment.  But, “[c]rime is contagious.  If the Government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy,”  Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 451 (1928).

Under the common law right to fair trial on the issue of scope of employment, as well as VA Const., and VA Code, the question is to be resolved by an evidentiary hearing before an impartial jury under 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  This is because as pointed out by Jefferson, the jury trial is the most important safeguards against arbitrary and oppressive governmental policies. As explained in a case I argued and won before the United States Supreme Court in 1995,[5] impartial review is a mainstay of our system of government, as Madison wrote,

“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time…. ” The Federalist No. 10, p. 79 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Conclusion

The petition is filed with the General Assembly to investigate and impeach government attorneys and employees, including judges, acting outside of their authority and jurisdiction in violation of VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ad Initio Order Doctrine, based on the evidence of willful violations of the rule of law in Virginia by abuse the misuse of stare decisis/res judicata to affirm the VSBDB void ab initio order.

The General Assembly must take action because “there is no other adequate remedy for obtaining it at law,” due to the systematic denial to me of access to an impartial trial by jury of the evidence of malfeasance and business conspiracy to injure my statutory property interest, reputation, business, profession, and right to employment.

Isidoro Rodriguez

^[1]Fed. 47 p 109, states that, “[the VA Const.],declares, . . .‘that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise powers properly belonging to the other. . . .”

[2] 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)

[3]In Legal Club of Lynchburg v. A.H. Light, 13249, 430, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), citing Fisher=s Case, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835),  the Supreme Court of Virginia held that although in a proper case a court does have inherent power to suspend or annul the license of an attorney practicing only in that particular court, for a court to have, A[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).See 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; see also David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954) http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmrval/vol2/iss1/2.

[4] Misprision of treason is defined pursuant to VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482.

[5] See Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration, 515 U.S. 417 (1995).

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

[ii] Article VI, § 7. Selection and qualification of judges–The justices of the Supreme Court shall be chosen by the vote of a majority of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly . . . . The judges of all other courts of record shall be chosen by . . .  members elected to each house of the General Assembly. . . .

[iii] Article VI, § 5. Rules of practice and procedure. — The Supreme Court shall have the authority to make rules governing the course of appeals and the practice and procedures to be used in the courts of the Commonwealth, 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….

[iv] 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.

TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

January 4, 2016

Pursuant to Article IV § 17 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”), I petition the General Assembly for investigation and impeachment of Virginia’s government attorneys and employees, including judges, for malfeasance by their intentional acts outside the scope of their employment, judicial capacity, and jurisdiction:

• by violation of VA Const. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7, and VA Code §§ 54-1-3915 and 54-1-3935, in issuing unauthorized Rules of the VA Supreme Court to usurp the General Assembly’s exclusive legislative authority (http://home.earthlink.net/~treason/), so to create the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court,” and appoint its members as “judges”;

• by violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine and the doctrines of stare decisis/res judicata, so to conceal and affirm the void ab initio order of the VSBDB of November 2006 (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf), disbarring me as a Virginia trial attorney licensed since 1982, because: (1) I litigated pursuant to VA Code § 54.1-3932, to enforce my Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien for legal service fees owed me as Sea Search Armada/Armada Company’s Legal Representative since 1987, responsible for their contract suit in Colombia for sunken treasure trove on the 1707 Galleon San Jose: (NPR report’s on  Pres. of Colombia confirming Dec. 2, 2015 of finding treasure trove valued at $18 Billion USD.); and, (2) to enforce my rights as a father under a joint custody agreement, VA Code and Treaty, to keep my 13 year-old U.S. citizen son in Virginia (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml); and,

• by violation of VA Code §§ 18.2‑499 and 500, in participating in a civil and criminal business conspiracy to injure my reputation, profession, right to employment, and statutory right in my Choate VA Attorney’s Lien for legal services fee owed me as a Virginia attorney.

In summary, to vacate the VSBDB void ab initio order, and to obtain damages for the business conspiracy and malfeasance (see http://home.earthlink.net/~malfeasance), I petition each of you to act to stop this pattern and practice denying all citizens of Virginia, not only me, of the right under the VA Const. and Code of access to an impartial jury trial to hold government officials accountable for wrongful acts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ; and http://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5).

Respectfully submitted,

         Isidoro Rodríguez 

Isidoro Rodríguez

U.S. residente: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227, Vienna, Virginia 22180

Colombian office: World Trade Center, Calle 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313, Barranquilla, Colombia

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

2. Jan 25 2015 Memorandum in Support of Petition

January 26, 2016

The Hon. Delegate David Albo

General Assembly Building, Room 529

P.O. Box 406 Richmond, Virginia 23218

Telefax: (804)698-6742; Office: (804) 698-1042; Email Address:DelDAlbo@house.virginia.gov

Legislative Assistant: Danielle Gemma; Kevin Hoonan;  and Sharon Moeser

 

Dear Delegate Albo,

Thank you for responding to my e-mail.  But but because you are Chairman of the House of Delegates Committee Courts of Justice.you are incorrect in asserting that I am limited to only contacting my delegate.  This is because my allegations concern the violations of the rights of all citizens of Virginia,

Thus, I have send via mail, e-mail, and telefax, every member of the Virginia General Assembly House of Delegates and Senate, my allegations of malfeasance by violation of Art. VI if the VA Const. and systematic denial of access to an impartial trial by jury of these allegations and the evidence., of malfeasance government attorneys and employees, including judges, and there participation in a business conspiracy,

As explained in below letter I which I have telefaxed, you have the lead responsible to investigate my allegations,  Therefore in addition to already   sending by telefax, I will send the sam by U.S. Mail,  I also am attach my Petition and the Memorandum in support thereof.  Please have your staff contact me.

RE:      2. Jan 25 2015 Memorandum in Support of Petition FOR INVESTIGATION AND IMPEACHMENT FOR MALFEASANCE AND BUSINESS CONSPIRACY

Prior to your approving as chairman of Committee Courts of Justice, the Attorney General and Judicial Branch’s budget during this 2016 Session, I submit the above referenced memo in support of my petition I filed on January 4, 2016, with the General Assembly for investigation and impeachment of Virginia’s government attorneys and employees, including judges (see 2010 presentations to Northern Virginia Delegates https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5).  Seldom has there been such clear evidence of government attorneys and employees, including judges, conspiracy to violate the mandate of separation of power pursuant to the limitations and prohibitions under the VA Const. and VA Code (http://home.earthlink.net/~treason/).[1]

I argue that the clear motive for these acts of malfeasance and business conspiracy is not limited to financial interests in conflict with my property rights, but too based upon my 40 years of service to the public as an active federal civil litigator, as well as a White House appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations, a pattern of practice of the Judicial Branch and government attorneys’ malfeasance to deprive Virginia citizens of independent advocates experienced in challenging government action by the use of unlawful court rules to create a centralized attorney disciplinary system and kangaroo “court” appointed and controlled by the Virginia Supreme Court.

Since, “[c]rime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy,”  Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 451 (1928), in accordance with Art. IV § 17 of the VA Const., the House of Delegates and Senate must investigate and impeach based upon the systematic denial to me of access to an impartial trial by jury of the evidence of:

(1)   malfeasance in violation of VA Const. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7, and VA Code § 54-1-3915, limitations and prohibitions by surreptitiously replacing the decentralized attorney disciplinary system created under VA Code § 54-1-3935, with a centralized system under the Supreme Court of Virginia control by it issuing court rules to crate the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court,” and name its members as “judges;” and,

(2)   a business conspiracy in violation of VA Const. VI § 5, VA Code § 54-1-3915, VA Code §§ 18.2‑499 and 500, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, to affirm the VSBDB void ab initio order disbarring me for litigating to enforce my statutory rights (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf): (i) to my choate VA Attorney’s Lien for fees owed me based on contingency or quantum merit for service since 1988 as Legal Representative of Sea Search Armada managing their contract suit to treasure trove recently confirmed by the Pres. of Colombia as located and valued at $18 Billion USD (see attach letter to Pres); and, (ii) to enforce my rights as a father under joint custody agreement and Treaty to protect my 13 year-old U.S. citizen son from being forced from Virginia to a “zone of war” (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).[2]

Please have your assistant contact me for further information or assistance.

Respectfully,

Isidoro Rodríguez