The undersign Plaintiff at this moment provides in support of Complaint for Declaratory Judgment under VA Code §§ 8.01-184 et seq. the following supplemental authority:[1]
The Honorable Senior United States District JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON, Memorandum Opinion, and Order Granting a Preliminary Injunction Order of Injunction Unconstitutional VA Code, in Damian Stinnie, et al., v. Richard D. Holcomb, in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Moter Vehicles, Case No. 3:16-CV-00044 United State District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (December 21, 2018).
Regarding the granting of a Declaratory Judgement and a preliminary injunction in the instant action to enjoin an unconstitutional ex post facto and retroactive provision of the Virginia Code, the opinion and order of the Hon. Senior District Judge Norman K Moon which is on point and relevant in the instant action to be considered by the Circuit Court. This supplemental authority governs the issuance of an injunction based upon the controlling precedent of the four-part test under Winter v. Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) and Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cty., 722 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 2013).
As a benchmark for the Circuit Court of the Complaint for Declaratory Judgemwent and the Motion for Injuction to be heard on January 4, 2019 at 0830, the Hon. Senior Judge Norman K Moon wrote at page 22 of in his Memorandum Opinion:
Other Winter Factors
The remaining factors governing a request for a preliminary injunction—irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest—weigh in favor of Plaintiffs. First, where Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are being violated, there is a presumption of irreparable harm. Davis v. District of Columbia, 158 F.3d 1342, 1343 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing Ross v. Meese, 818 F.2d 1132, 1135 (4th Cir. 1987)) …. As for the remaining factors, the balancing of the equities and public interest, Fourth Circuit precedent “counsels that ‘a state is in no way harmed by issuance of a preliminary injunction which prevents the state from enforcing restrictions likely to be found unconstitutional. If anything, the system is improved by such an injunction.’” Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cty., 722 F.3d 184, 191 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002)). (Emphasis added)
[1] Isidoro Rodriguez v. General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., Fairfax County Circuit Court, Docket No. CL-2018-0016227, filed November 14, 2018. Affidavit to serve on the by publication filed on 12/19/18.
Respectfully submitted,
Isidoro Rodríguez
Residence: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227
Vienna, Virginia 22180
(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 