1. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure,[1] Petitioner Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez (“Mr. Rodriguez”), does file this second request for urgent intervention by this Commission in order to prevent continued unlawful acts of the United States by the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by jury of the evidence of malfeasance and business conspiracy by government attorneys and employees, including judges, to deprive Mr. Rodriguez of his business, profession, reputation, statutory property rights and fundamental rights of employment as a pro hoc vice federal litigator, [2] by the unlawful and misuse of stare decisis in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine (See Supporting Memorandum of Law).

As part of this ongoing conspiracy the court in Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. VA, 12 cv 663 JAB (2014), unlawful used stare decisis in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to summarily dismiss the suit and to issue a prior restraint to enjoin future suit of the evidence of malfeasance and business conspiracy)(http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/sea-search-armada-annandale-virginia-c477026.html.

Therefore, the evidence confirms that to date Mr. Rodriquez has been denied of his fundamental right to protect and enforce his statutory choate Virginia Attorneys Lien on Sea Search Armada and Armada Company’s claim to approximately $18 Billion USD of treasure trove sunken aboard the Galleon San Jose (confirmed by the Pres. of Colombia as located),[3] and denied of his fundamental right to employment as a federal pro hoc vice litigator before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, D.C. and Federal Circuits, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Tax Court.[4] (See Petition, Petitioner’s Ex. 1 through 17, and Supplemental filings).

Seldom has there been such clear and extensive evidence of 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):

First, the evidence confirms that the United States, its government attorneys and employees, including judges, have surreally abused the doctrine of stare decisis in violation of the void ab initio order doctrine so to affirm the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board void order disbarring Mr. Rodriguez for litigating to enforce statutory property and Hague Convention as a father (See http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf).

Second, the evidence confirms that the United States, its government attorneys and employees, including judges, have conspired to systematically deny Mr. Rodriguez of access to an impartial federal court and civil jury trial so to prevent their being held accountable for acts of malfeasance in violation of the 5th, 7th and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article IV of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and for participating in a business conspiracy to deprive Mr. Rodriguez of his business, profession, reputation, property right.

Consequently, a serious and urgent situation is present mandating precautionary measures consistent with Petition P-926-16 filed on May 15, 2016, so to protect Mr. Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession, fundamental rights to employment as a pro hoc vice federal litigator, statutory property right in his choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien, and right under Untied States domestic law to hold government attorneys and employees, including judges, accountable for bad acts in willful violation of United States and Virginia Constitutions, domestic law, Charter, and the American Declaration.

1. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Rodriguez, is a 70-year-old citizen of the United States of America (“United States”) born in New York City of Puerto Rican decent, a Viet Nam Veteran, and domiciled in the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia”).[5]  Mr. Rodriguez established in 1987 in Barranquilla, Republic of Colombian (“Colombia”),[6] a unique civil pro hoc vice litigation practice in the United States[7] representing nonresident Hispanic United States/Colombian citizens and businesses before the United States Supreme Court, United States Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, District of Colombia, and Federal Circuits, United States District Ct. for the E.D. of Virginia, the United States Tax Court, and Supreme Court of Virginia.

Mr. Rodriguez request for precautionary measures on his own behalf against the United States for the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and civil trial by jury of the evidence of retaliatory malfeasance and business conspiracy to unlawfully disbar Mr. Rodriguez as a member of the above cited United States courts, and to injure Mr. Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession, and property rights in 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”).

In summary, the evidence confirm a pattern and practice of retaliation against Mr. Rodriguez for his pro hoc vice litigation on behalf of nonresident Hispanic U.S./Colombian citizens,[8] challenging policies by misuse of the Judicial Conference Act violating separation of power under the direction of the United States Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice and the Chief Justice the United States Supreme Court during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).  The United States has unlawfully disbarred and deprived Mr. Rodriguez of his statutory choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on his clients Search Armada and Armada Company (“SSA”) claim to 50% ownership of treasure trove aboard the Galleon San Jose, recently confirmed by the Government of Colombia (“GOC”) located and valued at $18 Billion USD on December 2, 2015,[9] his pro hoc vice civil litigation practice,[10] his business, his good reputation, his legal profession, and statutory rights by the violation of the Void and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine and abuse of the judicially created abstention doctrines, i.e. stare decisis and res judicata, see 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; 4th Cir. USCA No, 13-1638 (2013); cert. denied U.S. S. Ct No. (2014) (JAB)(Petitioner’s Exhibits 8a, 8b, 8c, 13, 14a thru 14e).

• THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ADOPTION OF PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES

1. The Commission has Jurisdiction and Authority to Issue Precautionary Measures.

Under Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission has the authority to receive and grant requests for precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm to persons in connection with a pending petition. As a member state of the OAS, the U.S. is subject to an international legal obligation to comply with a request made by the Commission for such measures. [11]  Regarding the United States systematic denial to Mr. Rodriguez of access to an impartial court and civil trial by jury of the evidence of malfeasance and business conspiracy, the Commission since 2002 has repeatedly used its authority to issue precautionary measures in an attempt to protect petitioners from irreparable harm and human rights violations.[12]

1. The Commission Should Issue Precautionary Measures Requiring Investigation

The Commission may issue precautionary measures where “serious and urgent situations” present risk of irreparable harm to persons in full accordance with international law and to comply with its obligation to investigate.[13]

Mr. Rodriguez does seek the urgent intervention of this Commission, in order to prevent continued unlawful acts of government attorneys and employees, including judges by their malfeasance and business conspiracy to systematically deny access to an impartial court and civil trial by jury so to conceal and prevent the holding of them accountable for willful violation of United States and Virginia domestic law.

Under Article 25 of its regulations, the Commission may intercede in “serious and urgent cases, and whenever necessary according to the information available … to prevent irreparable harm to persons.” This is such an urgent case.

The Commission has jurisdiction to adopt precautionary measures, based upon its press release reminding the U.S. of its obligation to adhere to the precautionary measures request.

This was issued because at the same time that the United States supports its compliance with treaties, it has since September 19, 2013, ignored a request from Commission for precautionary measures.  The U.S.’s failure to comply with the precautionary measures follows the release of the Commission’s newly amended Rules of Procedure, effective August 1, 2013.  The reforms included significant amendments to Article 25, which governs the doctrine of precautionary measures. Under its powers derived from Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, Article 106 of the Organization of American States (OAS) Charter, and Article 18(b) of the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights the IACHR grants precautionary measures in serious and urgent situations to prevent irreparable harm. Professor Rodríguez-Pínzon explains that the Commission considers precautionary measures to be “inherent” to their adjudicatory functions.

Article 25 now reads with more specificity, providing guidance defining and interpreting “serious situation,” “urgent situation,” and “irreparable harm.” Addressing the contested issue of States’ obligations to adhere to precautionary measures, Article 25 also outlines the relevant provisions in the American Convention on Human Rights (Convention) and OAS Charter from which the Commission derives the power to grant precautionary measures. The amendments to Subsection 10 allow for more explicit follow-up measures including “timetables for implementation, hearings, working meetings, and visits for follow-up and review.” This language allows the Commission to closely observe precautionary measures through targeted supervision.

Disregarding the above rule of international law, the U.S. has consistently stated that the orders are not legally binding, rejecting precautionary measures in many cases including Marlin Gray v. United States, Juan Raul Garza v. United States, and Detainees of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba v. United States. The U.S. argued in Marlin Gray that the Commission Rules of Procedure were approved by the Commission itself but were not adopted by the Member States, and therefore cannot be binding. Additionally, the U.S. asserted that the OAS Charter Statute refers only to precautionary measures as related to parties to the Convention, and the U.S. is not a party to the Convention. In Garza v. Lappin, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit denied the enforcement of precautionary measures granted by the Commission in the 2001 case of Juan Raul Garza, stating that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Declaration), to which the U.S. is a party, is “merely an aspirational document that, in itself, creates no directly enforceable rights.”

However, the fact is that neither the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) nor the Commission’s Statute restricts the exercise of the Commission’s authority to issue precautionary measures in relation to the American Declaration as extending to all OAS Member States and in respect of persons “subject to their authority and control.”[14]

In Coard v. United States, several individuals filed a petition against the United States, alleging violations of the prohibition of arbitrary detention under the American Declaration. The detentions were alleged to have taken place during the U.S. military incursion in Grenada. In its report, the Commission set forth the “authority and control test.”  Each American State is obliged to uphold the protected rights of any person subject to its jurisdiction.[15]  In sum, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system, as well as the case law of other jurisdictions, the key determination is whether a state has “authority and control” over the affected individuals.

Therefore, the Commission must have jurisdiction in this matter given the evidence of malfeasance and business conspiracy by United States and Virginia government attorneys and employees, including judges, to systematically deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury so to prevent being held accountable for:

(1) malfeasance by willful violation of United States domestic law and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia to illegal usurp legislative power by the issuance and use of illegal Supreme Court of Virginia court rules replacing the decentralized attorney disciplinary system created under VA Code § 54-1-3935, with a centralized system under the Supreme Court of Virginia’s control establishing the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “kangaroo court,” and naming its members as “judges” (see https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5); and,

(2) a business conspiracy to deprive Mr. Rodriguez of his right to employment as a pro hoc vice federal litigator, his international business, profession, and property in violation VA Code §§ 18.2 499 and 500, by the affirming of the VSBDB void ab initio order disbarring Mr. Rodriguez (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf): (i) for litigating to enforce his statutory choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien for fees owed for service as Legal Representative of SSA since 1988; and, (ii) for litigating to enforce his rights as a father under joint custody agreement and Hogue Treaty so to protect his then 13 year-old U.S. citizen son from being forced to a “zone of war” in 2002  (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).

Therefore, Mr. Rodriguez respectfully requests the issuance of precautionary measures based on the evidence of the United States:

First, violated Mr. Rodriguez’s rights under Articles XVIII, XXV, and XXVI.

Second, violated Articles XVIII, and XXIII, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

Third, discriminated against Mr. Rodriguez —at least implicitly—based on his being Hispanic and having an office in the Republic of Columbia, violating Mr. Rodriguez’s rights to equality before the law protected under Article V, XIV, and XVII.

Fourth, violated Mr. Rodriguez’s right to a remedy for violation of protected rights guaranteed under Article XVIII, XXIII, and XXVI, as well as United States domestic law, through willful violation of the void ab initio order doctrine and systematic denial of access to an impartial court and civil trial by jury of the evidence of malfeasance and business conspiracy by the United States government attorneys and employees, including judges acting outside the scope of their authority.

Consequently, precautionary Measures are warranted here given that Mr. Rodriguez is subject to serious violation of his fundamental rights by the systematic denial of access to an impartial court to hold government attorneys and employees, including judges, accountable for malfeasance and business conspiracy.[16]  “[I]rreparable harm” may also be shown by demonstrating the existence of a serious risk to personal integrity.[17]  The evidence of the systematic denial of access to an impartial court in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to defame and unlawfully disbar Mr. Rodriguez as a pro hoc vice federal litigator by the willful violation of Untied States domestic law clearly poses an imminent and serious risk to his personal integrity if the Precautionary Measures requested are not adopted. The requested Measures are directed and narrowly tailored toward the avoidance of this harm. The facts set forth in this Request for Precautionary Measures establish prima facie violations of the Charter and the American Declaration and the risk of irreparable harm has been amply demonstrated.

VIII. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

For the aforementioned reasons, Mr. Rodriguez respectfully request that the Honorable Commission:

1. Urgently issue the necessary and appropriate precautionary measures to prevent further irreparable harm to Mr. Rodriguez fundamental rights to employment as a pro hoc vice federal litigator and to his statutory property rights.
2. Grant this petition an expedited initial evaluation in accordance with Article 29 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure;
3. Consider the admissibility and merits of this petition simultaneously, in accordance with Article 30(7) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, given the serious and urgent nature of the case and the ongoing violations of fundamental rights;
4. Declare the petition admissible, conduct a full hearing, and find that the United States has violated fundamental rights enshrined in Articles I, III, V, VI, XI, XVIII, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; and
5. Order the United States to provide prompt and adequate reparations for the violations suffered by Mr. Rodriguez of his business, profession, reputation, fundamental right to employment as a pro hoc vice federal litigator, and statutory choate Virginia Attorneys Lien.

The Petitioner thanks the Commission for its careful attention to this pressing matter.

Dated: August 15, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,
Isidoro Rodriguez
2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227
Vienna, Virginia 22180
Mobil: 571-471-5350

Email: business@isidororodriguez.com

 

 

 

[1] See Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Art. 25, approved by the Commission at its 137th regular period of sessions held from October 28 to November 13, 2009.

[2] Charter, Article 2, states, “in order to put into practice the principles on which it is founded and to fulfill its regional obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, proclaims the following essential purposes: (l) The American States proclaim the fundamental rights of the individual . . . Subsequently, in Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) (Rehnquist dissenting) (the Court held that the practice of law is a “fundamental right,” and underscored the importance of independent pro hoc vice litigators for, “bringing claims that would be too unpopular for resident lawyers to bring (Emphasis added)

[3] See Attach Notice to President of Colombia regarding settlement discussions with Jack Harbeston et al., that would deprive Mr. Rodriguez of his property rights in his choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on Sea Search Armada and Armada Company’s claim to the treasure trove.

[4]It is alleged that the motives for these retaliatory acts of malfeasance and business conspiracy to deprive Mr. Rodriguez of his property rights and fundamental right to employment are not limited to financial interests in conflict with Mr. Rodriguez’s statutory property rights by Washington D.C. Lobbyists/Attorney Eric Holder et al., but, too to punish Mr. Rodriguez for his past 24 years of successful litigation against unlawful government policies by former Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Department of Justice in both the Clinton and Obama Administrations to deny nonresident U.S./Colombian citizens of their fundamental and statutory rights (see http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml), 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).

[5] Mr. Rodriguez lives with his US/Colombian wife and 13-year-old son, in a rented an apartment in Virginia, and maintain their main home on the coast near Santa Veronica, Colombia.

[6] After serving from 1977 to 1983 as a White House appointee in the Carter and Reagan Administration (SES Director of Office of Civil Rights, USDA), Mr. Rodriguez went to Colombia in 1983 as Contracts Administrator/Assistant General Counsel, Morrison Knudsen International, on the $2 Billion EXXON Cerrejon Coal Mine Project, Guajira, Colombia.

[7] In 1995 the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed to the media the uniqueness of Mr. Rodriguez’s practice upon his arguing and winning against the U.S. government, Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), by stating it was “the only instance in recent memory that a lawyer with an address outside the United States has argued a case before the Court.” Tony Mauro, Legal Times, “Testing the Limits of Sovereign Immunity” (1995).

[8] See Katia Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), supra (https://www.oyez.org/advocates/isidoro_rodriguez) (reversed USCA 4^th Cir., to hold that a nonresident Hispanic had the right of access to an impartial jury evidentiary hearing of a DEA agent causing a car accident in Barranquilla, Colombia by acts outside “scope of employment,” i.e. driving while under the influence and getting oral sex); Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93‑6019 and 96‑6145 (DOJ’s attorneys can be hold accountable for unauthorized interception of nonresident Hispanic U.S./Colombian citizens’ fund transfers in violation of the Electronic Communications Act (“ECPA”)); Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (DOJ and the banks can be hold accountable for unlawful access to nonresident Hispanic U.S./Colombian citizens account information and interception of wire communications); 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 (challenging President Clinton’s issuance of a bill of attainder against nonresident Hispanic U.S./Colombian citizen).

[9] U.S. Congressmen Benjamin A. Gilman, Dan Burton, and Phil M. Crane, described SSA’s claim as the “largest private claim by citizens against a foreign state pending in the world,” and in Sea Search Armada vs. the Republic of Colombia, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 275 (2013), the court held it valued between $2 billion to $8.5 billion USD.

[10] This contrary to the controlling precedent in, Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) (Rehnquist dissenting) (holding that the practice of law is a “fundamental right” and emphasized the importance of pro hoc vice litigators, “bringing claims that would be too unpopular for resident lawyers to bring.” (Emphasis added)

[11] See Org. of American States, IACHR Fifth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, OEASer.L/V/II.111 doc. 21 rev., paras. 71-72 (2001); Juan Raul Garza v. U.S., Case No. 12.243, Inter-Am Comm’n H.R., Report No. 52/01; Annual Report of the Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R. 2000, at ¶ 117.

[12] See Djamel Ameziane v. U.S., Petition P-900-08, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 17/12 at 99 (2012).

[13] Supra note 111, art. 25.

[14] IACHR, Request for Precautionary Measures Concerning the Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (March 12, 2002) at p. 2

[15] Supra n. 22 at fn. 7.

[16] See Loayza Tamayo Case, Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (July 2, 1996).

[17] See, e.g., Loayza Tamayo Case, Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (February 3, 2001).