June 8, 2016



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:

  • malfeasance by the violation of the limitations and prohibitions under VA Const. VI §§ 1,[1] 5,[2] & 7,[3] and violation of the decentralize attorney disciplinary system enacted by the General Assembly under VA Code § 54-1-3935,[4] by the Supreme Court of Virginia issuing unconstitutional court rules to establish a centralize attorney disciplinary system under its control, crating the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court,” naming VSBDB members as “judges,” and naming a three judge panel under its control. (see https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5); and,


  • participation in a business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2‑499 and 500, VA Code § 54-1-3915,[5] the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, by affirming the void order of the VSBDB disbarring Mr. Rodriguez for litigating: (i) to enforce my statutory choate VA Attorney’s Lien for fees owed for managing as Legal Representative of Sea Search Armada since 1988 a contract suit to treasure trove, seeReport of  Pres. of Colombia confirming  locating the treasure trove valued at $18 Billion USD; and, (ii) to enforce my rights as a father pursuant to joint custody agreement, VA Code and Treaty, to protect my then 13 year-old U.S. citizen son from being forced from Virginia to a “zone of war” in 2002. (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf).


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.”

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

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 givesUnited 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.

  1. The Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine prohibits using of Stare Decisis and/or Res Judicata to affirm a void order issued outside of Jurisdiction

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 judicataCollins 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.

  1. VA General Assembly Established Decentralize Attorney Disciplinary System

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.

  • Evidence of Malfeasance by Court Rules Unlawfully Establishing a Centralized Attorney Disciplinary System

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.

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

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.

  1. Conclusion

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.

  1. 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. . ..

[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 Murchison349 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. Lapsley20 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).