The notice is to inform citizens of the willful violation of the limitations and prohibitions under the Constitution of Virginia to deprive citizens of an independent legal profession. Citizens must vote in the 2019 November State Election make their representatives in the General Assembly accountable for unconstitutional legislation in violation of ex post facto laws and the separation of power under Virginia and U.S.Constitution.

            This notice to citizens is based upon the fact that each first Saturday of January since 2009, I as a citizen of Virginia and resident of Fairfax County have petitioned my representative State senator Richard L. Saslaw and State Delegate Marcus B. Simon (See, to challenge the violations of Art. VI § 1, 5 & 7 VA Const. by government attorneys acts outside the score employment, judges acts outside of judicial authority by use of unconstitutionalSupreme Court of Virginia Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 promulgated in 1998, and by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) — an entity illegally created as a lower court by the above-cited unconstitutional court rules – to issue a Void Ab Initio Order [1] in retaliation for my being an independent civil litigator,[2] by damaging my interstate/international pro hoc vice Federal litigation practice,my reputation and my professional standing as a lawyer with more than 45 years of first chair litigation experience, by,

First, denying due process by systematically depriving me of access to an impartial court to challenge the judicial authority of the VSBDB by the misuse stare decision enforce the VSBDB void ab initio order to disbarment as a active litigator before the Supreme Court of Virginia, theUnited States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Tax Court, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Fourth Circuit, as well as the bar of United States Court ofAppeals for the Second, Third, Eleventh, District of Colombia Circuits, andFederal Circuits;

Second, by violating my common law trial and statutory rights to protect my Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien from a VA Code §§ 18.2-499 business conspiracy byEric Holder et al., by the Federal courts holding that there was no jurisdiction in Virginia to challenge the fraudulentVSBDB Bar Complaint;

Third, by unlawfully depriving me of my right to employment as an attorney and my right to unemployment compensation by the Virginia Employment Commission based upon the VSBDB void ab initio order;

Fourth, deprive me of my right to deduct business expenses in 2006 by accessing taxes greater then allowed by law by the Internal Revenue Service summarily declaring litigation expenses for challenging the VSBDB void ab initio order as “frivolous” and then denied access to an impartial United States Tax Court given their earlier disbarring me based upon the VSBDB void ab initio order; and,

Fifth, the summary rejection of my application to be a member of the District of Columbia Bar based upon the VSBDB void ab initio order.   

            But, in violation of their respective oath of office to defend the VA Cosnt., neither Senator Saslaw, nor Delegate March, nor their staff responded to my petition for redress and accountability for a business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§18.2-499 to damage my law practice, reputation, profession, and statutory property right in a Choate Attorney’s Lien.

            Because of my representatives and the GeneralAssembly’s failure to stop the violation Art. VI § 1, 5 & 7 VAConst., and the common law by the granting of government attorneys and judges to themselves “impunity” and absolute immunity from accountability, I filed a Petition to Inter-American Commission onHuman Rights (IACHR) (P-926-16 IACHRPetition and a UnitedNations Complaint to the  Committee on Human Rights (see Memorandum in Support of UN Complaint).

            In response the evidence confirms that in 2017:

            First, my representatives and the GeneralAssembly enacted ex-post-facto legislation outside “the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,Tenney v. Brandhove, 341U.S. 367 at 376 (1951) in violation of the prohibition under Art. I § 1, 5& 9 VA Const. by changing VA Code § 54.1‑3935(1998) to retroactively “conform the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017)] for the disciplining of attorneys” to the unconstitutional Supreme Court of Virginia Rule Part 6, §IV, 13-6 issued in 1998; and,

            Second,my representatives and the General Assembly enacted outside the ‘the sphere of legitimate legislative activity”retroactive change to the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system in the Commonwealth established in 1932  under VA Code §54.1‑3935 (1998), by usurping the exclusive power to amend the VA Const. of the citizens of Virginia under XII § 1 VA Const. and by violating the mandate of separation of power under Art. VI § 1, 5 & 7 VAConst.,  to delegate legislative authority given only to them by the citizens of Virginia by adopting the unconstitutional Court Rule Part 6, § IV,13-6, issued in 1998 in “clear absence of all jurisdiction.Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U. S. 351.Pp. 435 U. S. 355-357; Johnston v. Moorman, 80 Va. 131,142 (1885); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), to obfuscate the Court’s unlawfully: (a)establishing a centralized statewide attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control; (b) establishing the VSBDB as a lower court with judicial authority to discipline attorneys; and, (c) appointing VSBDB members as judges.

            Consequently, I filed in November 2018 a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment[1]and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus[2],under the Common Law, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia and VA Code to stop the above unconstitutional acts by a by business conspiracy and by a Class 2 felony to “[resist] the execution of the laws under color of authority”in violation of VA Code§§ 18.2‑481 & 482. I also filed Motion to Empanel a Special Grand Jury (See

Date: December 14, 2018

Isidoro Rodriguez

2671 Avenir Place, Apt 2227

Vienna, Virginia 22180

Mobile phone No. 571.477.5350


[1] The Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine mandates that when an entity does not have either constitutional authority, or legal power, or jurisdiction to render any order, said order is void ab initio—therefore not subject stare decisis/res judicata because the order is 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).

 [2] The evidence confirms that Eric Holder as Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Dept.of Justice (“DOJ”) during the Clinton Administration, as Washington D.C.Lobbyist/Attorney, and as Attorney General during the Obama Administration,undertook a business conspiracy to damage my international litigation practice in retaliation for representing nonresident Hispanic U.S. and Colombian citizens to challenge the unlawful policies of DOJ: see Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA,515 U.S. 417 (1995)(the Hon. Chief Justice/Circuit Justice for the USCA for theFourth Cir. William Rehnquist dissenting)(I argued and won before the UnitedStates Supreme Court who reversed the USCA for the 4th Circuit, to remand for a common law evidentiary hearing before a jury of the acts outside the scope of employment, rejectingDOJ’s surreal argument that a DEA agent acted within his scope of employment while negligently causing a car accident while having sex and DWI); Cooperativa Multiactiva de Empeados de Distribuidores de Drogas(Coopservir Ltda.” v. Newcomb, et al., D.C. Cir. No 99-5190, S Ct. No 99-1893(2000) (I challenged President Clinton’s Executive Order as a prohibited bill of attainder issued under the War Power Act); Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ,2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145 (1996) (I argued and won before the USCA 2ndCir to hold accountable DOJ’s Assistant U.S. Attorneys accountable for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1978); and, Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (I argued and won the right to hold DOJ’s Assistant U.S. Attorneys, employees and financial institution accountable for violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act).