Now, for me apart from seeking to determine if my former client or the entity which they unlawfully transferred title to their claim in an effort to deprive me of my attorney’s lien, will make a bid, I am focusing on obtaining accountability by Eric Holder et al.’s business conspiracy which has deprived me of my statutory rights, See Complaint against the Offices of the United States Attorney for the E.D. of Virginia and District of Columbia, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation for Refusing to Investigate/Charge Eric Holder et al. for a Business Conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499 by acts of Malfeasance During the Obama Administration in Violations of Art. VI of the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, to systematically deny me access to an impartial court and trial by jury.
June 12, 2017
President Donald J. Trump U.S. Attorney General Sessions
The White House U.S. Department of Justice
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Re: Complaint against the Offices of the United States Attorney for the E.D. of Virginia and District of Columbia, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation for Refusing to Investigate/Charge Eric Holder et al. for a Business Conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499 by acts of Malfeasance During the Obama Administration in Violations of Art. VI of the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.
As a strong supporter of the Trump Administration and “old” Republican, I have previously advised you that as a Vietnam Vet, based on my oath I give in 1964 to defend the Republic against all “enemies foreign and domestic,” I have litigated during the past 35 years to challenge and stop the damage being done to our Republic by the Clinton/Obama Administrations’ systematic denying to citizens access to an impartial court and trial by jury to prevent holding accountable Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Gov’t Attorney Mr. Eric Holder for participating in a business conspiracy and malfeasance.
In support of the above, I already have provided information regarding my May 15, 2016, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States [“IACHR”] Petition P-926-16, to protect the fundamental right of the citizens of Virginia. Enclose is my filing dated May 29, 2017, to supplement my request for precautionary measure by the United States (copy sent to Mr. Kevin Sullivan, Interim Permanent Representative at the U.S. Mission to the OAS)(Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 and 2, see http://www.isidororodriguez.com).
In summary, I now file this Complaint based upon the indisputable evidence that during the Obama Administration under the control and stewardship of Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Gov’t Attorney General Eric Holder, the U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the E.D. of Virginia, the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and Federal Bureau of Investigation, not only refused to stop unlawful acts outside the scope of employment and jurisdiction, but rather did actively participate in the business conspiracy to damage my business, profession, reputation, right to property, and employment in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499 by acts of malfeasance in retaliation for the undersigned being an independent pro hoc vice civil litigator seeking to hold accountable government attorneys, employees and judges for violations of the restrictions, limitations, and prohibitions of Article VI, §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”), VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 54.1‑3915, and VA Code § 54.1‑3935, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and the 5th, 7th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution (“U.S. Const.”) (see presentation to NOVA General Assembly, https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5).
Although this Complaint may appear as only legal sophistry and very esoteric, it is not . Because it seeks to redress for a policy to systematically deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury to hold government employees accountable for acts outside the scope of employment and jurisdiction in accordance with the holding the undersigned argued and won before the U.S. Supreme Court in Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (fundamental right to an evidentiary hearing before a jury on alleged acts outside the scope of employment), as well as the holding of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, (1978), which only provided absolute judicial immunity to state court judges acting within the general jurisdiction of a State. However, it could not grant Federal courts absolute immunity because they are courts of limited jurisdiction under the U.S. Constitution.
Thus, in addition to my IACHR Petition, my plan this Summer to petition members of the U.S. Congress and the General Assembly of Virginia to investigate and take action to protect the citizens of Virginia from the systematic deny of access to an impartial court, independent advocates, and trial by jury. It is the legislative bodies that must act to hold government employees accountable for acts outside their jurisdiction and scope of employment by permitting the usurping of the exclusive legislative authority of the General Assembly of Virginia to establish courts and appoint judges under the Art VI of the VA Const., by the concealing the Supreme Court of Virginia promulgation and use of illegal court rules to create a “kangaroo court” and appoint on it “judges.”
Therefore, in addition to all of the above actions, once I believe I have had an opportunity to meet with the new Assistant U.S. Attorney for the E.D. of VA, to assure access to an impartial court and trial by jury, I will file a lawsuit seeking damages against Eric Holder et al., for their business conspiracy that 2008 has injured my business, profession, the right to property and to employment since 2008.
I served as an SES appointee in the first Reagan Administration as the Director of the Office of Civil Rights, USDA, and have been the U.S. Ex-pat Founder/Chairman of the Republicans Abroad Colombia Chapter (est. 1988), volunteering in Bush 41, Bush 43, and the Trump Campaigns. Since leaving the above political appointment, I have been a U.S. Ex-pat residing in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Republic of Colombia, first as the Assistant General Counsel/Contracts Administrator, Morrison Knudsen International during the construction of EXXON’s $2 Billion USD Cerrejon Coal Mine Project, and, after as a federal pro hoc vice civil litigator representing nonresident U.S. citizens and businesses, as well as Colombian citizens.
In violation of the controlling precedent (Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (which I argued and won to confirm the fundamental right to an evidentiary hearing before a jury on alleged acts outside the scope of employment (https://www.oyez.org/advocates/isidoro_rodriguez), the Obama Administration, under the direction of Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Mr. Eric Holder, undertook a policy to systematically deny citizens access to an impartial court and a trial by jury in support of the surreal self-proclaimed assertion of Obama appointees of “absolute judicial immunity” for acts outside jurisdiction, and immunity to all government employees for acts outside of scope of employment. This was founded on a distortion and legal sophistry ignoring the holding in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, (1978) (providing absolute judicial immunity only to state court judges when acting within their general jurisdiction of a State judge). Federal judges are of limited jurisdiction and do not have absolute immunity. Furthermore, even State judges acting to promulgate a code of conduct for attorneys have no judicial immunity. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (1980). In Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., supra., explained that legislative, rather than judicial, immunity furnished the appropriate standard: “Although it is clear that under Virginia law the issuance of the Bar Code was a proper function of the Virginia Court, propounding the Code was not an act of adjudication but one of rule making.” Id., at 731. Similarly, the Court held that judges acting to enforce the Bar Code would be treated like prosecutors, and thus would [484 U.S. 219, 229] be amenable to suit for injunctive and declaratory relief. Id., at 734-737. Cf. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984). Only when action within their jurisdiction it is the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, that was the basis of immunity analysis. Thus, since no one is above the law, this analysis does not apply to acts in clear violation of the VA Const. and Va Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.
 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 . . .
 Constitution of Virginia 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. (Emphasis added).
 Constitution of Virginia Article VI, § 5. Rules of practice and procedure. The Supreme Court shall have the authority to make rules…, but such rules shall not be in conflict with the general law . . . established by the General Assembly. (Emphasis added)
 Constitution of Virginia Article VI, § 7. Selection . . . of judges. The justice of the Supreme Court of shall be chosen by a vote of the . . . General Assembly. . .. The judge of all other courts of record shall be chosen by the . . . General Assembly . . ..
 VA. Code § 54.1‑3909. The Supreme Court may promulgate rules and regulations: . . . Prescribing procedures for disciplining, suspending, and attorneys.
 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.
 Va. Code § 54.1‑3935. Procedure for revocation of license.
- 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.
- 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.
- Bar Counsel of the Virginia State Bar shall prosecute the case. . ..
- Upon the hearing, if the attorney is found guilty by the court, his license to practice law in this Commonwealth shall be revoked. …
 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. See 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).
 Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states in relevant part, “No person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law; . . ..”
 Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, grantees the right to a trial by jury for alleged malfeasance by any government employee, including judges.
 The Due Process Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, states in relevant part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of . . . property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
The evidence confirms a business conspiracy and malfeasance by obfuscation and concealing the promulgation and use of Illegal Supreme Court of Virginia Court Rules establishing a “kangaroo Court” and appointing its members as “judges” under the direct control of the Supreme Court of Virginia. This is a clear violation of the above cited provisions of VA. Const. and VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. This was compounded by Federal Courts depriving a citizen and attorney of Virginia of equal protection of the laws and his fundamental rights to employment in retaliation for being an independent federal pro hoc vice litigator, and for litigating to enforce his statutory rights as a father (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3; http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml), and property rights in his Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on a client’s contract claim to treasure trove (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf).