12 Sunday Jun 2016
Tags
Judicial Branch must be held accountable for willful violation of the limitations and prohibitions under the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions.
09 Thursday Jun 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
June 8, 2016
TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
REQUEST FOR PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE COMMISSION’S REGULATIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ.
On May 15, 2016, Mr. Rodriguez filed the above referenced Petition P-926-16, for the willful violation of Article 2(1) of the Charter of the Organization of American States (Charter), and Article V, XIV XVII XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (“American Declaration”), by the United States’ systematic denial of access to an impartial court and impartial trial by jury of the evidence of:
Thus the evidence confirms that there has been a willful violation of the U.S. Const., VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ad Initio Order Doctrine, to conceal the violations of the rule of law and separation of power in the United States and Virginia, by abuse of stare decisis/res judicata to affirm and give effect to the VSBDB void ab initio order. Pursuant to Va. Code§ 18.2‑481(5), Supp. Addendum c, treason is, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of [the Judicial Branch’s] authority.”
Seldom has there been a case evidencing a conspiracy to violate the limitations and prohibitions under the U.S. Const., VA Const. and VA Code, and the mandates of separation of power. History confirms that the violation of constitutional principal of separation of power has never been lost on either despots, or those who wish to undertake the sudden overthrow of a Constitutional government by a small group of persons in authority.[6]
Separation of Power
Regarding separation of power by enforcing constitutional limitation and prohibitions, 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). Also, Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia 196 (1787), viewed violation of separation of power would create a “despotic government.” [7]
Specifically, regarding enforcement of constitutional limitation and prohibitions upon 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.
Echoing Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and Patrick Henry, another famous Virginian, Chief Justice Marshall wrote Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 404 (1816),
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. (Emphasis added)
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. To this end they enacted constitutional limitations and prohibitions enforcing the mandate of separation of power between and among entities in government.
To protect the people in the United States and Virginia, these Founding Fathers intentionally fractured power in innumerable ways in the Virginia Constitution, which served as the benchmark to the Federal Constitution. At the outset they confirmed that all government power was derived from the consent of the govern–We the People, and mandated that separation of power 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, at page 13. This is because,
[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882) (Emphasis added). See also, Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.
Therefore, the Founding Fathers diffused the power of the courts by mandated compliance with the VA Const. and VA Code. Furthermore, they made the judicial branch subject to the control of the legislative branch by prohibiting the promulgation of court rules in conflict with both substantive rights of the people and statutory rights (in short the courts cannot enact legislation). Finally, they gave no judicial immunity for acts outside of authority or jurisdiction, by establishing in both Constitutions the absolute right to civil jury trials on the issue of malfeasance, thereby limiting the risk of creating dangerous nodes of power within the Judicial Branch. Ames E. Pfander, Federal Courts, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme Court’s Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1433 (2000).[8]
Thus, our Founding Fathers, understood that by the violation of the mandate of separation of power 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.
In Virginia, as in every other jurisdiction, 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. Therefore, a void ab initio order cannot be affirmed by the use of 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), and may be attacked in any court at any time, “directly or collaterally.” Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95(1987).
This is because 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 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, 45.
Consistent with separation of power, 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.@ 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). (Emphases added).
Exercising its exclusive constitutional power to create the jurisdiction of courts, appoint judges, the General Assembly responded by enacting VA Code ‘ 54.1‑3935 (A) and (B),[9] to establish a decentralize attorney disciplinary system utilizing each of the Court of Appeals, and county circuit courts, as well as the Supreme Court of Virginia.[10] The General Assembly completely rejected placing the statewide attorney disciplinary system under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
In flagrant disregard of the limitation and prohibitions under VA Const. Article VI, § 1, 5, and 7, and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915, and 54.1‑3935, as well as ignoring controlling precedent, the Supreme Court of Virginia promulgated Rule Part 6, IV,13, to establish a centralize attorney disciplinary system under its control by crating the VSBDB as “court,” appointing its members as “judges,” and denying the right to a three judge panel in each county.
The above evidence confirms that the VSBDB was established as a “kangaroo court,” and its members appointed as “judges,” by the usurping the legislative power of the General Assembly. Also, the evidence confirms that the VSBDB issued a void ab initio order disbarring Mr. Rodriguez for litigating to enforce my statutory rights. Finally, the evidence confirms a business conspiracy to systematically deny Mr. Rodriguez access to an impartial trial by jury of the evidence of malfeasance and business conspiracy by affirming and using the VSBDB’s void ab initio order.
But, Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), established the benchmark as to the right to challenge any void ab initio order. 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).
This is because 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. [11]
As explained in a case Mr. Rodriguez argued and won before the United States Supreme Court in 1995,[12] confirmed that impartial review is a mainstay of the United States system of government, in citing Madison’s statement that,
“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).
Therefore, under the common law, U.S. Const., VA Const., and VA Code, a right to a fair impartial trial by jury on the issue of scope of employment is a question to be resolved by an evidentiary hearing under 5th, 7th, and 14th Amend. to the U.S. Constitution. As explained in Martinez supra, the jury trial is the most important safeguards against arbitrary and oppressive governmental policies.
The IACHR must immediately accept the Petition, conduct an investigation, hold a hearing, and make recommendations to the United States to comply with the rule of law, because, “[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).
[1] 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.
[2] 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….
[3] 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. . ..
[4] VA Code § 54.1‑3935. 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. 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.
[5] 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.
[6] During the Nuremberg trials, by Van Der Essen, a member of the Official Belgian Commission for War Crimes testified that upon invading Belgium the Nazis immediately went about the task of dismantling the legal framework separating government power.
M’. Edger Faure (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic)]: Can you give information on the attempts at nazification of Belgium by the German, and especially the attempt to undermine the normal and constitutional organization of the public authorities.
Van Der Essen: Certainly. First, I think it is interesting to point out that the Germans violated one of the fundamental principles of the Belgian Constitution and institutions, which consisted the separation of power, that is to say, separation of judicial powers, of executive powers and legislative powers. . .. 6 Trial of the Major War Criminal Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946. 534-35 (Testimony of Van der Essen 4 Feb 1946).
[7]Federalist 47, “[the Virginia’s Constitution] . . . declares, ‘that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise powers properly belonging to the other. . ..” Id p 109.
[8] 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)
[9] See David Oscar Williams, Jr., in The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954) http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmrval/vol2/iss1/2, which describes in detail Virginia’s decentralized attorney disciplinary system. See also 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.
[10] 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.
[11] See In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955) (“[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.”); Spencer v. Lapsley, 20 How. 264, 266 (1858) (recognizing statute accords with this maxim); see also Publius Syrus, Moral Sayings 51 (D. Lyman transl. 1856) (“No one should be judge in his own cause.”); B. Pascal, Thoughts, Letters and Opuscules 182 (0. Wight transl. 1859) (“It is not permitted to the most equitable of men to be a judge in his own cause.”); 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *91 (“[I]t is unreasonable that any man should determine his own quarrel.”).
[12] See Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration, 515 U.S. 417 (1995).
03 Friday Jun 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
June 3, 2016
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
1889 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
United States
Re: Second Supplemental Legal Research in Support of Petition (P-926-16) Filed with The Inter-American Commission On Human Rights Against the United States Under for The Systematic Denial to nonresident U.S./Colombian citizens of Access to an Impartial Court and Civil Trial by Jury of the Evidence of Malfeasance and Business Conspiracy.
Greetings:
In support of my May 15, 2016, Petition (P-926-16) and Request for Precautionary Measures based on the evidence of an ongoing serious and urgent situation, filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), against the United States for its systematic denial of access to an impartial trial by jury of the evidence of a pattern and practice of malfeasance by government attorneys and employees, including judges by their willful violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Federal Code, Virginia Code, and domestic law (See http://www.isidororodriguez.com), I submit as a Second Supplemental support Justice John F. Molloy’s book: The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, published by Paragon House.
In summary Justice Molloy was an attorney in Arizona who went on to serve as a judge on the Arizona Superior Court bench. He is probably best known for his time serving as Chief Justice to Court of Appeals for the State of Arizona, where he authored the famous Miranda decision that was subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and overturned, resulting in what is known today as the “Miranda Rights” which law enforcement now quotes to suspected criminals upon arrest.
Judge Molloy wrote his book that was published in 2004 a few years before he died in 2008. An excerpt from the book has been published and copied in many places on the Internet today, reprinted in accordance with the “fair use” provision of Title 17 U.S.C. § 107. It is an amazing expose on just how corrupt the United States Judicial System is today. Because my Petition is based in part on the evidence of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by disbarring me based on the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s Void Order for litigating to enforce my rights to property and as a father under Virginia Constitutional and Virginia Code. See The U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Standing Committee on Attorney Discipline, (3rd Cir. No 08-8037, (December 5, 2008), cert. denied No. 08-1121 (Closed, May 18, 2009); See also Pennsylvania Court Watch.
Photo courtesy of Paragon House
“THE FRATERNITY “- THE CORRUPTION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM EXPOSED BY A JUDGE
“The once honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.”
Justice John F. Molloy
When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls. In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.
I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.
Looking back
The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.
The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs
That was just the beginning. By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona’s largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.
I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.
Disturbing evolution
Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law. Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It’s called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we’ve become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.
This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That’s because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer’s expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge’s application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.
Lawyer domination
When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?
When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.
Business of law
The concept of “time” has been converted into enormous revenue for lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are billed for a lawyer’s time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center. High powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.
The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.
Bureaucratic design
Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system’s process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.
The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.
The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served. Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?
This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it’s engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.
It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers. By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly. It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.
Surely it’s time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.
A lawyer from Tuscon, Arizona, John Fitzgerald Molloy (b. 1917) was elected to the Superior Court bench where he served for seven years as both a juvenile court and trial bench judge. He subsequently was elected to the Court of Appeals where he authored over 300 appellate opinions, including the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court. During that period, he also served as president of the Arizona Judge’s Association. After 12 years, Molloy returned to private practice to become president of the largest law firm in southern Arizona. His book has received widespread praise for its candor and disquieting truths.
Copyright 2004, Paragon House
I hope this additional research will facilitate and expedite the acceptance of my Petition, the conducting of an investigation, a public hearing to produce additional evidence and the witnesses, and the issuing of a report that will include recommendation to the United States to halt acts that are in violation of human rights by denying access to an impartial court and civil trial by jury, the making reparation for the harm caused to Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez, and the requiring of the adoption of other measure and actions to stop the ongoing violations of the Charter and the American Declaration by the United States of a pattern and practice to systematically deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury so to not hold Federal and State government attorneys and employees, including judges, accountable for malfeasance and business conspiracy.
01 Wednesday Jun 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
May 30, 2016
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
1889 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
United States
Re: Supplemental Legal Research in Support of Petition (P-926-16) Filed with The Inter-American Commission On Human Rights Against the United States for The Systematic Denial to nonresident U.S./Colombian citizens of Access to an Impartial Court and Civil Trial by Jury of the Evidence of Malfeasance and Business Conspiracy.
Greetings:
In support of my May 15, 2016, Petition (P-926-16)1. Final IACHR Petition and Request for Precautionary Measures (Seldom has there been such clear and extensive evidence of violation of the Charter), based on the evidence of an ongoing serious and urgent situation, filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), against the United States for its systematic denial of access to an impartial trial by jury of the evidence of a pattern and practice of malfeasance by government attorneys and employees, including judges by their willful violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Federal Code, Virginia Code, and domestic law (See http://www.isidororodriguez.com), I submit Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., excellent legal research paper dated April 15, 2016, entitled, Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf.
As Dr. Cordero explains in the introduction of his ground breaking research paper,
“This study analyses official statistics, reports, and statements of the Federal Judiciary showing that its judges are unaccountable and their operation is pervaded by secrecy; consequently, they risklesssly do wrong in self-interest and to people’s detriment, which calls for reform. (Emphasis added)
In the last 225 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of its judges have been removed from the bench (footnote omitted). They hold all their adjudicative, policy-making, administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and never appear before a press conference (cite omitted). They act with impunity. The evidence reveals their motive, means, and opportunity (cite omitted) to engage in financial and non-financial wrongdoing (footnote omitted) by abusing power to deny due process, disregard the law, and decide by reasonless summary orders (footnote omitted). They have hatched a system of wrongdoing so routine, widespread, and coordinated (cite omitted) among themselves and between them and insiders (footnote omitted, e.g., running a bankruptcy fraud scheme (cite omitted), as to have turned wrongdoing into their Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi (cite omitted).” (Emphasis added)
I hope this additional research will facilitate and expedite the acceptance of my Petition, the conducting of an investigation, a public hearing to produce additional evidence and the witnesses, and the issuing of a report that will include recommendation to the United States to halt acts that are in violation of human rights by denying access to an impartial court and civil trial by jury, the making reparation for the harm caused to Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez, and the requiring of the adoption of other measure and actions to stop the ongoing violations of the Charter and the American Declaration by the United States of a pattern and practice to systematically deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury so to not hold Federal and State government attorneys and employees, including judges, accountable for malfeasance and business conspiracy.
Respectfully Submitted,
Isidoro Rodriguez
U.S. Home address:
2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227
Vienna Virginia 22180-7488
Mobile: 571-477-5350
e-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com
Systemic Denial of Access to an Impartial Court and Trial by Jury by the Virigina and Federal Judical Branches for Act Outside their Judicial Authority 