Article IV of the Constitution of Virginia Restrictions, Limitations and Prohibitions on the Jurisdiction and Judicial Authority of the Supreme Court of Virginia

19 Tuesday Sep 2017

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, Uncategorized, Violation of the Doctrine of Federalism

≈ Leave a comment

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The benchmark of my challenge to the grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity to the Washington D.C./Virginia oligarchy of government attorneys, employees, and judges is President Theodore Roosevelt’s observation that, “[n]o man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.”

In that context, given the clear restrictions, prohibitions, and limitations of the VA Const. cited below on the Supreme Court of Virginia:

First, query, under judicial authority did the Supreme Court of Virginia have to promulgate court rules to create a centralized attorney discipline system under the Court’s control, create the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court, and appoint VSBDB members as “judges?”

Second, query, under what judicial authority and jurisdiction did the Federal Courts have to enjoin and grant “impunity” for unlawful acts of systematically deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury for violation of the below provisions of the VA Const.?

VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

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 as the same shall, from time to time, be 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 . . .. (Emphasis added)

VIRGINIA CODE SECTIONS INVOLVED

VA Code § 54.1‑3909. The Supreme Court may promulgate rules and regulations: . . . Prescribing procedures for disciplining, suspending, and attorneys.

The Supreme Court may promulgate rules and regulations:

Defining the practice of law.

Prescribing procedures for the limited practice of law by third-year law students.

Prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys including the practice of law or patent law through professional law corporations, limited liability companies, and partnerships, and a code of judicial ethics.

Prescribing procedures for disciplining, suspending, and disbarring 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. (Emphasis added)

DISCUSSION

The VA Const. and U.S. Const. confirmed that all government power was derived from the consent of the govern—”We the People,” and mandate the separation of power to serve as “distribution grids, apportioning authority…,” to protect the rights of citizens. [1] D. Arthur Kelsey, The Architecture of Judicial Power: Appellate review & Stare Decisis, Virginia State Bar, Virginia Lawyer October 2004, 13.

In that context, echoing James Madison writing in Federalist No. 47, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the violation of the limitation and prohibitions defining the separation of power would create a “despotic government.”Notes on the State of Virginia 196 (1787).[2] Consequently, both Founding Fathers understood that 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.

Regarding the need for constitutional checks on 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.”

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. The key to protection of the rights of citizens was “federalism” and the separation of power between and among entities in government thereby fractures power in innumerable ways to assure independent review of any violation of the law. To this end, VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, confirmed no judicial immunity for acts outside of authority or jurisdiction by making it a Class 2 felony for, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority.”

VA General Assembly Established a Decentralized Attorney Disciplinary System

VA Const. VI §§ 1,[3] and 7 [4] diffused the power of the Virginia Judicial Branch by restricting the authority to create courts and appoint judges exclusively to the Virginia General Assembly, thereby limiting the risk of creating dangerous nodes of power within the Judicial Branch inconsistent with the VA Const. and VA Code. To this end, VA Const. VI § 5,[5] and VA Code § 54-1-3915[6] strictly and clearly prohibited the Supreme Court of Virginia jurisdiction and authority to promulgate court rules in conflict with both substantive rights and statutory rights (in short, the courts cannot enact legislation).[7]

Therefore, the Supreme Court of Virginia, held that the power to either suspend or revoke an attorney’s license in all of Virginia, 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).[8] Thus, the General Assembly enacted the Acts of Assembly 1932. p. 139, to establish a decentralized attorney disciplinary system-specifically, not under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia. But, rather the General Assembly gave to each county court of appeals the jurisdiction to discipline attorneys and gave statewide effect to the disciplining of an attorney before that particular court.[9]

Pursuant to VA Const. VI § 5, the General Assembly’s decentralized attorney disciplinary system, the Supreme Court of Virginia was gives authority only to promulgate rules establishing an integrated Virginia State Bar (VSB), specifically enacting VA Code § 54-1-3915 to prohibit the Court from the promulgation of court rules in conflict with both substantive rights and statutory rights of an attorney (in short, the courts cannot enact legislation). To this end the VSB was given only the limited powers of investigating complaints against attorneys, to be exercised by a Council and Investigating Committee in each county. The function of the VSB Investigating Committee was comparable to that of a grand jury, as a fact-finding board. It had no power to suspend, reprimand, or disbar an attorney. Only after the issuance of a rule against an attorney, filed with the county clerk’s office of the county court having jurisdiction, was,

the court issuing the same shall certify the fact of such issuance and the time and place of the hearing thereon, to the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals, who shall designate two judges, other than the judge of the court issuing the rule, of circuit courts or courts of record of cities of the first class to hear and decide the case in conjunction with the judge issuing the rule . . .. (Emphasis added)

In Campbell v. Third District Committee of Virginia State Bar, 179 Va. 244, 18 S.B.2d 883 (1942), the constitutionality of the decentralized attorney disciplinary system was upheld, by holding that the General Assembly merely intended to give the county courts the general jurisdiction to hear and determine disbarment proceedings and did not intend to delegate to the tribunal any legislative powers. However, pursuant to the clear wording of VA Code §54.1-3935, the General Assembly specifically denied any power to the Supreme Court of Virginia to discipline attorneys statewide, by mandating that any Supreme Court of Virginia disciplinary action was to be referred to a specifically selected three-judge panel from the City of Richmond. Appeal from the judgment of the three-judge county court was a matter of right to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Also, the attorney who had been disbarred had the right to apply to the Governor for reinstatement, if at the time of application for such relief, “there is no other adequate remedy for obtaining it at law.” See VA Code of 1950, 12-45.

Subsequently, VA. Code § 54.1‑3935, was enacted by the General Assembly to re-confirm the decentralized attorney disciplinary system’s use of the jurisdiction of each County Court of Appeals, and circuit courts to discipline an attorney. VA Code §54.1-3935(B), again re-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–The statute specifically denied the Supreme Court of Virginia the power to discipline an attorney directly. Under VA. Code § 54.1‑3915, limited the delegated authority to the Supreme Court of Virginia under VA. Code § 54.1‑3909, by prohibiting the Court from prescribing, adopting, promulgating, and amending rules and regulations of unprofessional conduct, that would be inconsistent with rights under either VA Const. and/or VA Code.[10] Thus, it is incontrovertible that the General Assembly repeatedly rejected creating any centralized attorney disciplinary system under the direct control of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

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

VA Const. VI §§ 1, and 7 diffused the power of the Judicial Branch in Virginia to limit the risk of creating dangerous nodes of power within it. VA Const. VI § 5, and VA Code § 54-1-3915. Specifically, prohibits the Supreme Court of Virginia from the promulgation of court rules in conflict with both substantive and statutory rights of attorneys.[11]

To enforce this control on the Supreme Court of Virginia both the U.S. Const. and VA Const., confirm that there exists no “impunity” or immunity of the absolute right of citizens to access to an impartial court and civil jury trial for malfeasance.[12] See Ames E. Pfander, Federal Courts, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme Court’s Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1433 (2000).

3.Malfeasance of the Supreme Court of Virginia by affirming the VSBDB the Void Ab Initio Order disbarring Mr. Rodriguez.

The United States Supreme Court in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), established the benchmark as to the challenge to any void ab initio order. There 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).

Consistent with this the Supreme Court of Virginia, held that “[a] void judgment is one that has been . . . entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987) (Emphasis added), see also 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).

This is because all void ab initio orders or judgments issued without jurisdictional authority are invalid at the moment of issuance, are to be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which their effect is sought to be given.

This Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine mandates that when an entity does not have the statutory, constitutional authority, legal power, or jurisdiction to render any order, said order is void ab initio it is a complete nullity from its issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner. All void ab initio order may be attacked in any court at any time, “directly or collaterally.” All void ab initio orders have none of the consequences of a valid adjudication, thus, neither can the doctrine of stare decisis nor res judicata can be applied to give validity to a void order, not subject to becoming valid by the use of either stare decisis or res judicata. Because “[i]t 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 and 45.

Thus, Mr. Rodriguez has provided evidence of the ongoing repeated violations of fundamental rights by the Federal Court by their use of the VSBDB void ab initio order, as well as the denial to him of his fundamental right to challenge the various federal court disbarments based upon their use of stare decisis and res judicata to give effect to and not enjoin the VSBDB void ab initio order.

In short, the validity of the VSBDB void ab initio disbarment order, as well as those of the Federal Courts (Exhibit 1, 2, 3, and 4a thru m), are unlawful because of their failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial court of with subject matter jurisdiction. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also, Restatements, Judgments 4(b). The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extends to the judicial branch, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.

Because, the Virginia Supreme Court, “cannot act beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void [ab initio], and this even prior to reversal.” Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353 (1920).

Finally, it is a fundamental doctrine of law under the U.S. Const. VA Const., and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, that because Mr. Rodriguez is affected by a personal judgment of the VSBDB and Federal Court’s void ab initio orders, he must have his day in an impartial court, and an opportunity to be heard by a civil jury trial, on the evidence of the business conspiracy and malfeasance. 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 a 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.

4. Court Orders issued in Violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine

The Federal Courts have issued void ab initio orders by use of VSBDB void order sitting as a “kangaroo court” illegally created by court rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia in violation of Article VI of the VA Const., thus, all of the courts had a duty to, “vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction.” Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972); see also Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974). The affirmance of the VSBDB void ab initio order, based on stare decisis and res judicata not only fails to create any binding decision but equally important is prima facie evidence of the ongoing extent and nature of the business conspiracy. Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed. 370.

The orders issued the Hon. Judge Gibney (Exhibit 2a), denied Mr. Rodriguez of his right to a jury trial of the business conspiracy and malfeasance in violation of the U.S. Const., VA Const., and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. All of these void ab initio orders exceeded the court’s jurisdiction and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed. 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed. 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed. 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 S.Ct. 343, 61 L ed. 608. This is because, “[i]f a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn’t any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.” (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.). [13]

CONCLUSION

In summary, the evidence confirms that by cronyism, obfuscation and legal sophistry there has been a cover-up to conceal the disobedience to the 1^st, 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Const., the limitations and prohibitions on the courts under Article VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of the VA Const., the restricts under VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, 3932, and 3935, the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Article 2(1) of the Charter of the Organization of American States, Article V, XIV, XVII, XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, & XXVI of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and Articles 7, 8, 10, & 12 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, by the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of government attorneys, employees, and judges.

In furtherance of this business conspiracy to injure Mr. Rodriuez international pro hoc vice law practice, reputation, profession, right to property and employment, the Hon. Judge Gibney issue an order surreally granting “impunity” and absolute immunity from accountability for unlawful civil and criminal acts in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499, 500 by affirming and using the VSBDB void ab initio order (Exhibit #3) (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf), to conceal the promulgation and use of illegal Supreme Court of Virginia Court Rules establishing the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court,” and appointing VSBDB members as “judges” in violation of the VA. Const. and VA Code.

But, while every breach of the public trust is a matter of concern, few can be more grievous than those committed by our judiciary. If the Government and courts in the United States are allowed to be lawbreakers, “it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy,” Olmstead v. the United States, 277 U.S. 438, 451 (1928).[14] Thus, the Commission must act pursuant to Articles 7, 8, 10, and 17 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, to assure that Mr. Rodriguez be permitted to secure access to a trial by jury so to have accountability and damages for injury to his business, reputation, profession, right to employment, property rights, and statutory benefits.

A government attorney, employee, and judge are all bound by honor and their oath to uphold and defend their respective Constitutions and citizens. The basic tenet is that government is not to be used for personal enrichment and the extending of benefits to the corrupt. Government and the Judicial Branch are to work to ensure that public officials are using their office to further the public interest and not to enrich themselves or others. A United States Court is a public institution, and it has a duty to promote respect for the law.

If the vaunted rule of law can be disregarded by the tyranny of irritated ministers and judges which is evidenced by the acts against Mr. Rodriguez’s fundamental rights, then the United States is being permitted to have a policy and practice of “impunity” by denying accountability for the unlawfully disbarring Mr. Rodriguez by the courts and then the courts declaring them absolutely immune from suit for malfeasance. Neither the United States nor all the other members of the United Nations can long survive the unbridled tyranny of a judiciary in collusion with government attorneys, employees, and judges when they place themselves above and beyond the law.[15]

Respectfully submitted,

Isidoro Rodríguez

[1] Federalist No. 47 p 109, states that, “[the VA Const.], declares, . . . ‘that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise powers properly belonging to the other. . ..”

[2] More than 229 years ago Mr. James Madison in Federalist No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788, first addressed the concern that, “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Thus, forecasting unlawful acts outside the scope of employment, jurisdiction and judicial authority the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy by disregarding the limitation and prohibitions of the U.S. Const., VA Const., VA Code, and U.S. Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

[3] 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)

[4] 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. . .. (Emphasis added)

[5] 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….

[6] 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. . .. (Emphasis added)

[7] As stated by another Virginia attorney. Chief Justice Marshall, “[We judge] 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. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 404 (1816) (Emphasis added).

[8]The Court 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, “[t]he powers to go further and make suspension or revocation of license effective in all other court of the Commonwealth [this] must be conferred by statute.” (Emphases added).

[9] See 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; see also David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954) http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmrval/vol2/iss1/2.

[10] Federalist 47, p. 109, states that, “[the VA Const.], declares, . . . ‘that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise powers properly belonging to the other. . ..”

[11] As Virginia Circuit Judge the Hon. D. Arthur Kelsey, wrote, “The Constitution does not authorize the judiciary to write laws that the legislature failed to enact, or to repeal those that violate no recognizable constitutional principle, or to amend laws that are reasonably adequate but nonetheless can be improved upon. As Thomas Jefferson put it, a judiciary that pushes beyond these limits would place us all under the “despotism of an oligarchy” —one flatly at odds with the democratic principles of our republic.” VSB Journal, Hon. D. Arthur Kelsey, Law & Politics: The Imperative of Judicial Self‑Restraint, (2004). at p.5.

[12] VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, confirm that there is no judicial immunity for acts outside of authority or jurisdiction by making it a Class 2 felony for, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority.”

[13] “A judgment which is void . . . is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists.” People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448].

[14] The United States Supreme Court has observed in, United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 562 (1961): “[A] democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.”

[15] The famed 19th-century orator Daniel Webster rightly noted, “[t]here can be no office in which the sense of responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty, and property of every man. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails, and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven.” Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1851), Vol. III, pp. 6‑7.

DEPRIVED OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND TRIAL BY JURY OF THE EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL ACTS OF MALFEASANCE AND BUSINESS CONSPIRACY.

17 Sunday Sep 2017

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, DEnial of right to civil trial by jury, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Under common law, Article I, Bill of Rights, Section 11 of the VA Const.,[1] and the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Const., it is a fundamental right to a jury trial-not to a judge-which determined whether government officers, including judges, were to be held accountable in either civil or criminal jury trials for misbehavior.

Both the U.S. Const. and VA Const. confirmed an absolute right to civil jury trial of the evidence of malfeasance.[2] See Ames E. Pfander, Federal Courts, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme Court’s Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1433 (2000).[3]

Thus, there never was absolute judicial and ministerial immunity for acts outside of the scope of employment, jurisdiction, and judicial authority, but more importantly, the factual issues were to be decided by a jury hearing the evidence, see Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). Therefore, an action will lie for unlawful malfeasance and the business conspiracy to issue and enforce the void ab initio orders issued as part of an illegal enterprise.

[1] Article I, Bill of Rights, Section 11. Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking or damaging of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases.

That no person shall be deprived of his . . .property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts; . . ..

That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred. . ..

[2] 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)

[3] See Justice John F. Molloy, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, Paragon House (2004). “When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest. When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. . .. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench? When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.”

THE UNLAWFUL GRANT OF “IMPUNITY” AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR ACTS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT OF GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES, AND FOR VOID AB INITIO ORDERS ISSUED OUTSIDE JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL/VIRGINIA JUDIICAL BRANCH.

17 Sunday Sep 2017

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, DEnial of right to civil trial by jury

≈ Leave a comment

The orders of the Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. (USDCT E.D. VA), Hon Justice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Hon. John G. Roberts Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court/Circuit Judge of the USCT Appeals for the 4^th and District of Columbian Circuit (Exhibits 2a, 2aii, 2aiii and 2aiv), and the legal analysis of the Attorney General of Virginia (Exhibits 2av and 2avi) oddly and arrogantly used legal sophistry to misuse stare decisis and res judicata in violation of the void ab initio order doctrine[1]— so to unlawfully grant “impunity” and absolute immunity to all government actors, as well as to Jack Harbeston, for their unlawful business conspiracy and acts outside their scope of employment, jurisdiction, and judicial authority in violation of the limitation and prohibitions under Article VI of the VA Const., as well as the restrictions in VA. Code § 54.1‑3915.

“Restrictions as to rules and regulations. ‑‑‑Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article [delegating limited rulemaking authority], 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. . ..”

Thus, this surreal grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity by unpublished “Star Chamber” like opinions by misuse of stare decisis and res judicata are violations of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to systematically deny Mr. Rodriguez of his fundamental right to an impartial court and right to a civil jury trial to secure accountability and damages for acts outside the scope of employment, jurisdiction, and judicial authority. [2] This is because dating back to The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), under common law there is no absolute judicial and ministerial immunity for acts outside of jurisdiction, and an action for damages will lie for the conspiracy to issue and enforce a void order as part of an illegal enterprise.^[3]

It is a fundamental doctrine of equal protection of the laws and due process, incorporated into the common law that Mr. Rodriguez as a party affected by various void ab initio orders and personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard, before an impartial court with jurisdiction to hear the matter. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. This is because every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard before 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.

This is also mandated by Article 10 of the United Nations Bill of Rights, wherein it is written that “[e]veryone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations . . ..”[4] It is for this reason that judges were never given either “impunity” or absolute immunity for unlawful acts, particularly for acts outside their jurisdiction and judicial authority.[5]

In response to the legal sophistry and poor legal analysis of both the Hon. Judge Gibney and the Attorney General of Virginia (Exhibit 2a, 2av, and 2vi), research confirms that in both England and the colonies, it was in ordinary courts-before a jury trial-which determined whether government officers, including judges, with good behavior tenure, were to be held accountable in either civil or criminal trials for misbehavior. Prakash and Smith, How to Remove a Federal Judge, 116 Yale L. J. 72 at 74 (2006).

Also, it was Blackstone who first discussed various English statutes that provided for the making accountable and removal of judges for misbehavior and acts outside of the jurisdiction. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries 140 at 141. These were not a statutory exception to grants of good-behavior tenure, but consistent with the concept that a judge could be tried in court for unlawful acts outside of their jurisdiction. See, e.g. R. V. Gaskin, (1799) 1001 Eng. Rep. 1349 (K.B.) (reinstating a parish-clerk upon his demand that his employer shows cause for firing him); James Bragg’s Case (1616) 77 Eng. Rep. 1271, 1278-81 (K.B.)(reinstating a Burgess for lack of cause to remove him).

Consistent with common law, which the laws of Virginia are grounded the General Assembly enacted the English Rule in Va. Code §8.01-195.3(3), to hold that a judge or government attorney had no immunity from suit for acts outside of his judicial capacity or jurisdiction. See Robert Craig Waters, “Liability of Judicial Officers under Section 1983” 79 Yale L. J. (December 1969), pp. 326-27 and nn. 29-30). Thus, the Hon. Judge Gibney and the Attorney General are not only wrong in their misuse of the holding in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 at 360 (1978), but to their analysis provides additional evidence of their unlawful acts in furtherance of the business conspiracy by granting “impunity” and absolute immunity for acts outside of scope or employment, jurisdiction and judicial authority to injure Mr. Rodriguez.[6]

But not only are the federal government entities of limited and prescribed authority and jurisdiction under the U.S. Constitution but also federal legislation does not nor can it provide for them any judicial immunity for unlawful acts of malfeasance in violation of their jurisdiction and judicial authority. Pursuant to Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980), and, Den Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S. Ct. 2020 (1981), whenever a judge acts where he does not have jurisdiction to affirm and use a void ab initio order, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

Consequently, the evidence confirms that the Hon. Judge Gibney and the Attorney General of Virginia have unlawfully acted to obstruct justice to conceal the unlawful acts by, “[resisting] the execution of the laws under color of authority,”[7] to conceal and obfuscate the unlawful promulgation of illegal court rules in violation of VA Const., and VA Code. This was part of the conspiracy to systematically deny access to an impartial federal court and trial by a jury of the evidence of malfeasance and the business conspiracy to deprive Mr. Rodriguez of business, reputation, profession, property, and right to employment.[8]

In Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 140 (1970), Chief Justice Berge wrote, “If [judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” Also, Justice Black and Douglas in their dissenting opinion agreed, that, “. . . judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted, and punished for crimes . . .” supra. at 141-142. Also, in Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988), the Court held:

This Court has never undertaken to articulate a precise and general definition of the class of acts entitled to immunity. The decided cases, however, suggest an intelligible distinction between judicial acts and the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned by law to perform. Thus, for example, the informal and ex parte nature of a proceeding has not been thought to imply that an act otherwise within a judge’s lawful jurisdiction was deprived of its judicial character. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 363, n. 12 (1978). Similarly, acting to disbar an attorney as a sanction for contempt of court, by invoking a power “possessed by all courts which have authority to admit attorneys to practice,” does not become less judicial by virtue of an allegation of malice or corruption of motive. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 354. [484 U.S. 219, 228]. As the Bradley Court noted: “Against the consequences of [judges’] erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies, they must, in such cases, resort.” (Emphasis added) Ibid.

Therefore, the “impunity” and absolute “judicial immunity” given by the Hon. Judge Gibney, was an act outside his jurisdiction and judicial authority because it violated Article IV of the VA Const. And VA Code, and inconsistent/violation of the holding in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, (1978), which limited absolute judicial immunity for acts with jurisdiction and judicial authority of the court.

Finally, “impunity” and absolute judicial immunity has not even been extended even to State judges acting to promulgate a code of conduct for attorneys. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (1980). In explaining why legislative, rather than judicial, immunity furnished the appropriate standard, The Court wrote: “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 rulemaking.” Id., at 731. Similarly, in the same, 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). Once again, it was the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, that informed our immunity analysis. But at no time was there to be “impunity” for an unlawful activity outside of their jurisdiction, such as for the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, U.S./VA Const., and VA Code.[9]

[1] More than 214 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall first defined for U.S. jurisprudence the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, writing that, “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” See also Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, a void order is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. This is because “[a] void judgment does not create any binding obligation.” Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L Ed. 370 (1940); and, Ex parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861 (1882), holding that an illegal order is forever void.

[2] See Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (Rehnquist dissenting) (Mr. Rodriguez argued and won by before the U.S. Supreme Court the holding that there was a right to an evidentiary hearing before a jury on the alleged acts of government employees outside the scope of employment (https://www.oyez.org/advocates/isidoro_rodriguez).

[3] Sir Edward Coke found that Article 39 of the Magna Carta restricted the power of judges to act outside of their jurisdiction such proceedings would be void, and actionable,

[W]hen a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso ordine or erroneously, there the party who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court who executes the precept or process of the Court, no action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has no jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a person who is not a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process . . . Id. 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038‑41. (Emphasis added)

[4] In investigating and considering the merits of this complaint for the usurping of legislative constitutional authority by the Washington D.C. Oligarchy Federal/Virginia government attorneys, employees, and judge to permit the promulgation of court rules by violation of the limitation and prohibitions under Article VI of the VA Const., as well as the restrictions in VA. Code § 54.1‑3915, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights must recall that Charter was established in part to respond to the sorry behavior of German and other European judges, lawyers, and law schools assuming away the limitations and prohibitions of their respective constitutions that aided to power Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (“NAZI”) before World War II. Because, “[b]y the time the gas vans came and the human slaughter factories were built in Auschwitz and the other death camps, the murder of the six million Jews and other persecuted minorities was done completely within the framework of German law.” Yad Vshem, The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes Remembrance Authority, 2004.

[5] “I. COMBATING IMPUNITY: GENERAL OBLIGATIONS, PRINCIPLE 1. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF STATES TO TAKE. EFFECTIVE ACTION TO COMBAT IMPUNITY, “Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations.” E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, at page 7, Updated Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity.

[6] There the U.S. Supreme Court held in an action against a State court judge, that pursuant to common law a state court judge who acts without jurisdiction, or acts in violation of Constitutional, or acts in violation of statutory prohibitions expressly depriving him of jurisdiction or judicial capacity, judicial immunity is lost. This is because a State judge would be immune from suit only if he did not act outside of his judicial capacity and/or was not performing any act expressly prohibited by statute. See Block, Stump v Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity, 4980 Duke L.J. 879 (l980). This is exactly what the evidence confirms the Supreme Court of Virginia has done.

[7] Misprision of treason to violate the VA Const., is defined pursuant to VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482.

[8] See Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., excellent legal research paper dated April 15, 2016, entitled, Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf. As Dr. Cordero explains in the introduction of his ground-breaking research paper,

“This study analyses official statistics, reports, and statements of the Federal Judiciary showing that its judges are unaccountable and their operation is pervaded by secrecy; consequently, they recklessly do wrong in self-interest and to people’s detriment, which calls for reform. (Emphasis added)

In the last 225 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of its judges have been removed from the bench (footnote omitted). They hold all their adjudicative, policy-making, administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and never appear before a press conference (cite omitted). They act with impunity. The evidence reveals their motive, means, and opportunity (cite omitted) to engage in financial and non-financial wrongdoing (footnote omitted) by abusing power to deny due process, disregard the law, and decide by reasonless summary orders (footnote omitted). They have hatched a system of wrongdoing so routine, widespread, and coordinated (cite omitted) among themselves and between them and insiders (footnote omitted, e.g., running a bankruptcy fraud scheme (cite omitted), as to have turned wrongdoing into their Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi (cite omitted).” (Emphasis added)

[9] Administrative decisions, although essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not been regarded as judicial acts. In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend immunity to a county judge who had been charged in a criminal indictment with discriminating on the basis of race in selecting trial jurors for the county’s courts. The Court reasoned:

“Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. . .. That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court-criers, tipstaves, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?” Id., at 348. Although this case involved a criminal charge against a judge, the reach of the Court’s analysis was not in any obvious way confined by that circumstance.”

COVER LETTER TO Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit OHCHR- Palais Wilson United Nations Office at Geneva CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

15 Friday Sep 2017

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, DEnial of right to civil trial by jury, Violation of the Doctrine of Federalism

≈ Leave a comment

September 11, 2017

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, OHCHR- Palais Wilson. United Nations Office at Geneva . CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Re: United Nations Complaint Against The Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of Government Attorneys, Employees, And Judges for Their Use of Legal Sophistry to Self-Proclaim “Impunity” And Absolute Immunity from Accountability for Violation of The Restrictions, Limitation and Prohibitions of The Constitutions and Statues of The United States and Commonwealth of Virginia, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and Articles 7, 8, 10, & 12 Of the International Bill of Rights, and Relevant Principals.

Greetings:

This Complaint is based upon the evidence (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 a thru 4m), of the grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity for unlawful acts to systematically deny access to an impartial court to prevent the finding of accountability and a civil jury trial to award damages for the defiance of the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of Government attorneys, employees, [1] and judges of the restrictions, limitations, and prohibitions of Article VI, §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, and 3935, the 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.[2]

The courts have issued void ab initio orders abusing the judicially created doctrine of stare decisis and res judicata,[3] to conceal and obfuscate the promulgation/use of illegal court rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia by systematically denying access to an impartial court of acts of malfeasance and denying a civil trial by jury of the evidence of a business conspiracy to damage the undersign business, reputation, profession, right to property and right to employment in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499, 500.[4] (See attached Memorandum of Law in Support of Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez’s United Nations Complaint And Submission Of Information To The Special Procedures About His Challenge to The Grant Of “Impunity” For the Violations of The Limitation and Prohibitions of The Constitutions and Statutes of The United States and Commonwealth of Virginia, Articles 7, 8, 10, & 12 of the International Bill of Rights, And Relevant Principals.[5]

In closing, an investigation of the merits of this complaint against the Washington D.C. Oligarchy Federal/Virginia government attorneys, employees, and judge is warranted when the United Nations Commission on Human Rights remembers the sorry behavior of the Oligarchy of German judges, lawyers, and law schools use of legal sophistry to disregard the limitation and prohibitions of their constitution that aided to power the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (“NAZI”) and Hitler before World War II. As succinctly stated by Yad Vshem in The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes Remembrance Authority, 2004, “[b]y the time the gas vans came and the human slaughter factories were built in Auschwitz and the other death camps, the murder of the six million Jews and other persecuted minorities was done completely within the framework of German law.” (Emphasis added)

Respectfully,

Isidoro Rodriguez

http://www.linkedin.com/in/

[1] The Hon. Judges John G. Gibney also granted “impunity” to nongovernment bad actors Jack Harbeston and Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder, who in 2003 entered Virginia in 2003 to undertake the business conspiracy. Disregarding this evidence, Hon. Judge Gibney held that “the Court will not decide Harbeston’s jurisdictional claim since the Court dismissed the case.” However, in the related RICO action Isidoro Rodriguez v Jack Harbeston et al., USDCT WA No. C11-1601 (JCC) (Ex 4j), that court dismissed the action for lack of venue because “the complaint concerns disbarment proceedings in other jurisdictions. The proper venue to review those decision is those jurisdictions.”

[2] 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 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).

[3] Additional evidence of the above unlawful policy of the use of legal sophistry to grant “impunity” and absolute immunity for the use of unlawful court rules issued in violation of the limitations, prohibitions, and restrictions on the Supreme Court of Virginia under the above cited sections of U.S. Const. VA Const., and VA Code, can obtained from reading the Attorney General of Virginia’ Brief in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, and Motion and Brief in Support of Rule 11 Sanctions of Pre-filing Injunction and Monetary Sanctions (Exhibit 2v and 2vai). See also In re: Isidoro Rodriguez, States Tax Court Disbarment Order, October 16, 2009, Exhibit 1, pages 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, wherein the USTC surreally interpreted a part of VA Code § 54.1-3909, to assume away any of the restrictions on the delegation of authority so to permit their use of illegal court rules violating VA Const., and VA Code; see also Exhibit 2, page 9; Exhibit 4dii, page 82 of 83, on the odd grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity for acts outside of scope of employment and jurisdiction by unlawful acts.

[4] Va Code § 18.2‑499. Combination to injure others in their reputation, trade, business or profession: right of employees: (a) Any two or more persons who shall combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of wilfully and maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever, . . ., shall be jointly and severally guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Such punishment shall be in addition to any civil relief recoverable under § 18.2‑500.

[5] It was alleged in previous RICO actions (Exhibits 2a, 4a, 4j, and 4k) that Eric Holder as Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (“DOJ”) during the Clinton Administration undertook a business conspiracy to damage Mr. Rodriguez’s successful international litigation practice representing nonresident Hispanic U.S. and Colombian citizens against 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 the Fourth Cir. William Rehnquist dissenting)(there the United States Supreme Court reversed the USCA for the 4^th Circuit, to order an evidentiary hearing before a jury of the acts outside the scope of employment, rejecting DOJ’s surreal argument that a DEA agent acted within his scope of employment while negligently causing a car accident while having sex and DWI., See also: 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) (challenge to President Clinton’s Executive Order 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) (Mr. Rodriguez argued and won the right to hold accountable DOJ’s Assistant U.S. Attorneys accountable for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1978); and, Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (Mr. Rodriguez 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).

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MR. ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ’S UNITED NATIONS COMPLAINT AND SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION TO THE SPECIAL PROCEDURES ABOUT HIS CHALLENGE TO THE GRANT OF “IMPUNITY” FOR THE VIOLATIONS OF THE LIMITATION AND PROHIBITIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUES OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ARTICLES 7, 8, 10, & 12 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS, AND RELEVANT PRINCIPALS.

14 Thursday Sep 2017

≈ Leave a comment

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez’s (“Mr. Rodriguez”) United Nations complaint and submission of information to the special procedures challenges the grant of “impunity”[1] and absolute immunity for unlawful acts of the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of Federal/Virginia government attorneys, employees, and judges, by the Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., by first, ordering the summary dismissal of 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‑JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013) (Exhibits 2a, 2aii, 2aiii and 2aiv), to deny Mr. Rodriguez his right to a jury trial to obtain accountability and damages for malfeasance in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine,[2] and the business conspiracy in violation of VA Code § 18.2.499, 550,[3] and, second,

[enjoining of Mr. Rodriguez] from filing any lawsuit in any federal court of the United States involving in any way his disbarment or the allegations leading to his disbarment [by the VSBDB and federal courts]. The Court further enjoins the plaintiff from filing any lawsuit in any federal court of the United States against any of the defendants in this case, against any judge or retired judge, against any United States Attorney or member of a United States Attorney’s staff, against the Attorney General of Virginia or any past or present member of the Attorney General’s staff, and against the Virginia State Bar or any agents of the Bar. The plaintiff is further enjoined from filing any additional pleadings in the instant case, other than pleadings necessary to perfect and present an appeal.

[As well as ordering a prior restraint by requiring Mr. Rodriguez to file a motion] in the federal court in which he wishes to file [any other type of suit], for leave of Court to file suit. . ..” [4]

The Hon Judge Gibney’s grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity for unlawful acts and void ab initio orders outside the scope of employment, jurisdiction and judicial authority is but a part of a larger policy to permit the ongoing disobedience by Washington D.C./Virginia government attorneys, employees, and judges of the United State Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals for the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, D.C. and Federal Circuits, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States District Court for the District of Colombia, the United States Tax Court, the Supreme Court of Virginia, and lower Virginia courts (Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4a thru 4m), to the mandates under the 1^st, 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (“U.S. Const.”), the limitation and prohibitions under Article VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”) on the Supreme Court of Virginia and all other Federal/Virginia courts, the restrictions on the Supreme Court of Virginia and all other Federal/Virginia courts under VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, 3932, and 3935, the assuming away of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the failure to comply with Article 2(1) of the Charter of the Organization of American States, Article V, XIV, XVII XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, & XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and refusal to respect Articles 7, 8, 10, & 12 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.[5]

In short, the Hon. Judge Gibney has granted stare decisis and res judicata to void ab initio order so to permit the use of the unlawful court Rules of The Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6, § IV, 13-6, illegally creating an unauthorized centralized attorney disciplinary system under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia, permitting the establishing of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court” and it members as “judges” with the jurisdiction to hear and decide, “cases of lawyer misconduct. The twenty-member of the VSBDB are appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia is composed of sixteen attorneys and four lay members. The board issues written opinions following its hearings.” Thus, these illegal court rules are a clear violation of the limitation and prohibition under Art. VI of the VA Const., and VA Code, which all of the court opinions intentional failed to discuss to enforce the VSBDB retaliatory disbarment order of Mr. Rodriguez (see: http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf).

But, the unlawful acts government attorneys and void ab initio orders of judges to punish Mr. Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory and fundamental rights cannot be permitted. To do so has a “chilling effect” on the independence and free speech of all other attorneys to act independently of the Executive and Judicial Branch. Otherwise, all attorneys will be subject to bar disciplinary proceedings and punishment for no other act than justifiably questioning/impugning judicial jurisdiction and reputation, including the “suspension from the practice of law,”[6] marking, “for many if not most attorneys the gravesite of their careers.”[7] See The Official End of Judicial Accountability Through Federal Rights Litigation: Ashcroft v. Iqbal [129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009)], From the Selected Works of Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal, National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc., Summer 2011.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, states in relevant part, “Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right . . . to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

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 Fourteenth 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.”

VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

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.

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 as the same shall, from time to time, be established by the General Assembly.

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 . . ..

VIRGINIA CODE SECTIONS INVOLVED

Va. Code § 18.2-499, 500. Combinations to injure others in their reputation, trade, business or profession; rights of employees. Any two or more persons who combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of (i) willfully and maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever or (ii) willfully and maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful act, shall be jointly and severally guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Such punishment shall be in addition to any civil relief recoverable under § 18.2-500. Any person who attempts to procure the participation, cooperation, agreement or other assistance of anyone or more persons to enter into any combination, association, agreement, mutual understanding or concert prohibited in subsection A of this section shall be guilty of a violation of this section and subject to the same penalties set out in subsection

VA Code § 54.1‑3909. The Supreme Court may promulgate rules and regulations: . . . Prescribing procedures for disciplining, suspending, and attorneys.

VA Code § 54.1‑3932. Lien for fees. A. Any person having or claiming a right of action sounding . . . liquidated or unliquidated damages on contract may contract with any attorney to prosecute the same, and the attorney shall have a lien upon the cause of action as security for its fees for any services rendered in relation to the cause of action or claim. When any such contract is made and written a notice of the claim of such lien is given to the opposite party, his attorney or agent, any settlement or adjustment of the cause of action shall be void against the lien so created, except as proof of liability on such cause of action.

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. …

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

Part 6, § IV, 13-6, established the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board to hear the most, “serious cases of lawyer misconduct. The twenty-member board appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia is composed of sixteen attorneys and four lay members. The board issues written opinions following its hearings.”

RELEVANT UNITED NATIONS LEGAL DOCUMENTS

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://undocs.org/A/RES/217(III).

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law…

Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations . . .

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 17. . . . . (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, . . . and to protection against unemployment. …. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

PRINCIPLES

Updated Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity at https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/109/00/PDF/G0510900.pdf?OpenElement.

Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/EffectiveInvestigationAndDocumentationOfTorture.aspx)

Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/VictimsOfCrimeAndAbuseOfPower.aspx

Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/IndependenceJudiciary.aspx

Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RoleOfLawyers.aspx)

Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RoleOfProsecutors.aspx)

Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RemedyAndReparation.aspx)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 1943 the General Assembly enacted VA Code § 54.1‑3935, to establish a decentralized attorney disciplinary system in Virginia under the control of each county court of appeals, and specifically rejected a centralized statewide attorney disciplinary system under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

In 1998 the Supreme Court of Virginia violated the limitations and prohibitions of Article VI §§ 1, and 7 of the VA Const., and the restrictions under VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, and 3935, by usurping the exclusive legislative authority to establish courts and appoint judges of the General Assembly, by issuing Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia Part 6, § IV, 13-6, in willful violation of the limitations and prohibitions of Article VI § 5 of the VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1‑3915, so to establish under the Court’s control a centralized attorney disciplinary system by creating Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court” (See http://www.vsb.org/pro-guidelines/index.php/bar-govt/procedure-for-disciplining-suspending-and-disbarring-attorneys), and appointing the VSBDB as “judges” (See https://www.vsb.org/site/about/disciplinary).

In 2003 Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder (“Holder”),[8] and Mr. Jack Harbeston (“Harbeston,” the Managing Partner of Mr. Rodriguez’s client Sea Search Armada and Armada Company (“SSA”) entered into a business conspiracy to injure Mr. Rodriguez’s international law practice, good reputation, profession, statutory property rights under VA Code § 54.1-3932, and right to employment in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499, 500, by simultaneous entering Virginia and filing two fraudulent bar complaints with the VSBDB to punish Mr. Rodriuez for: (1) litigating in accordance Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion #1325 issued to Mr. Rodriguez on February 27, 1990 (Exhibit 3a) confirming his statutory right to take action to protect his property interest in his Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on the client’s claim to sunken treasure trove aboard the 1707 Galleon San Jose off the coast of the Republic of Colombia (“Colombia”) (See NPR report’s on Pres. of the Colombia confirming Dec. 2, 2015, of finding treasure trove valued at $18 Billion USD), and, for litigating to enforce his rights as a father to protect his 13 year-old U.S. citizen son from a “zone of war” pursuant to the Hague Convention, VA Code, and Joint Custody Agreement (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).
This Complaint is based upon the evidence (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 a thru 4m), of the grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity for unlawful acts to deny accountability and the award of damages for the defiance of the restrictions, limitations, and prohibitions of Article VI, §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, and 3935, the 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.
On November 27, 2006, after summarily denying various motions challenging their authority and jurisdiction as a “court” and their acting as “judges,” the VSBDB issued a Void Ab Initio Order, disbarring and punishing Mr. Rodriguez for litigating to enforce statutory property rights and fundamental rights as a father (Exhibits 3b at http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf).
In 2007, the Supreme Court of Virginia in an unpublished summary order affirmed the VSBDB void ab initio disbarment order, without discussing the clear violation of Art. VI of the VA Const., VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915, and 3935, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine (Exhibit 3c).[9]
From 2007 thru the present, Washington D.C./Virginia government attorneys, employees, and the Honorable Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Honorable Judges of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States Tax Court, violated the 1^st, 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amend. U.S. Const., Art. VI of VA Const., the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Social Security Act,[10] by their unlawful use and abuse of the judicially created doctrine of stare decises and res judicata to affirm the VSBDB void ab initio order to disbar Mr. Rodriguez as a federal civil litigator, so to injure his international law practice, his business, reputation, profession, statutory property right, and the right to employment (Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4a thru 4m).

In 2013 the Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., the Honorable Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and Honorable Justice of the United States Supreme Court, gave all above government attorneys, employees, and judges “impunity” and absolute immunity from accountability by summarily affirming the dismissing of Mr. Rodriguez’s lawsuit, affirming the denial of the demands for a jury trial and grand jury, affirming the enjoining of any future suit for the alleged violations of the 1^st, 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amend. U.S. Const. VA Const. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7, VA Code §§ 54-1-3909, 3915 and 3935, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and affirming the issuing a prior restraint mandating that Mr. Rodriguez file a motion with any federal court to seek permission to file any other type of federal action, 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‑JAB (Exhibit 2a thru 2aiv).

To challenge the above unlawful acts and obtain “redress of grievances,” Mr. Rodriguez filed petitions from 2009 thru 2017 with President Barrack Obama (Exhibit 5a thru 5b), and his legislative representatives from Northern Virginia in the Virginia General Assembly and in the U.S. Congress (Exhibit 6 and 7, see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ and, https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5).

Because of the refusal to conduct a legislative investigation of the unlawful court rules (Exhibit 8a, 8b, and 8c), Mr. Rodriguez filed on May 15, 2016, a Petition (P-926-16) (Exhibit 9a) with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), and a Request for Precautionary Measures (MC-367-16) (Exhibit 9b, see http://www.isidororodriguez.com).

More than 18 months have passed since the first Request for Precautionary Measures (MC-367) was filed and then summarily denied without any meaningful explanation (Exhibit 10), and the Petition (P-926-16) was only provisionally registered and has been only under “study” without action, despite repeated request based on the evidence of “exceptional circumstances” which are “inextricably tied to the merits of the matter” of the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by jury (Exhibit 11).

Because when justice is delayed, justice is denied,[11] the instant United Nations’ complaint and submission of information to the Special Procedures have been filed to challenge the surreal grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity from accountability and damages for the systematic denial of access to an impartial court, and a trial by jury for unlawful acts and void ab initio orders of government attorneys, employees, and judges.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

THE UNLAWFUL GRANT OF “IMPUNITY” AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR ACTS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT OF GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES, AND FOR ISSUANCE BY JUDGES OF VOID AB INITIO ORDER OUTSIDE THEIR JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.

The orders of the Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. (USDCT E.D. VA), Hon Justice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Hon. John G. Roberts Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court/Circuit Judge of the USCT Appeals for the 4^th and District of Columbian Circuit (Exhibits 2a, 2aii, 2aiii and 2aiv), and the legal analysis of the Attorney General of Virginia (Exhibits 2av and 2avi) oddly and arrogantly used legal sophistry to misuse stare decisis and res judicata in violation of the void ab initio order doctrine[12]— so to unlawfully grant “impunity” and absolute immunity to all government actors, as well as to Jack Harbeston, for their unlawful business conspiracy and acts outside their scope of employment, jurisdiction, and judicial authority in violation of the limitation and prohibitions under Article VI of the VA Const., as well as the restrictions in VA. Code § 54.1‑3915.

“Restrictions as to rules and regulations. ‑‑‑Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article [delegating limited rule making authority], 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. . ..”

Thus, this surreal grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity by unpublished “Star Chamber” like opinions by misuse of stare decisis and res judicata are violations of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to systematically deny Mr. Rodriguez of his fundamental right to an impartial court and right to a civil jury trial to secure accountability and damages for acts outside the scope of employment, jurisdiction, and judicial authority. [13] This is because dating back to The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), under common law there is no absolute judicial and ministerial immunity for acts outside of jurisdiction, and an action for damages will lie for the conspiracy to issue and enforce a void order as part of an illegal enterprise.^[14]

This is also mandated by Article 10 of the United Nations Bill of Rights, wherein it is written that “[e]veryone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations . . ..” [15] It is for this reason that judges were never given either “impunity” or absolute immunity for unlawful acts, particularly for acts outside their jurisdiction and judicial authority.[16]

In response to the legal sophistry and poor legal analyses of both the Hon. Judge Gibney and the Attorney General of Virginia (Exhibit 2a, 2av, and 2vi), research confirms that in both England and the colonies, it was in ordinary courts-before a jury trial-which determined whether government officers, including judges, with good behavior tenure, were to be held accountable in either civil or criminal trials for misbehavior. Prakash and Smith, How to Remove a Federal Judge, 116 Yale L. J. 72 at 74 (2006).

Consequently, the evidence confirms that the Hon. Judge Gibney and the Attorney General of Virginia have unlawfully acted to obstruct justice to conceal the unlawful acts by, “[resisting] the execution of the laws under color of authority,”[18] to conceal and obfuscate the unlawful promulgation of illegal court rules in violation of VA Const., and VA Code. This was part of the conspiracy to systematically deny access to an impartial federal court and trial by a jury of the evidence of malfeasance and the business conspiracy to deprive Mr. Rodriguez of business, reputation, profession, property, and right to employment.[19]

RODRIGUEZ HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND TRIAL BY JURY OF THE EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL ACTS OF MALFEASANCE AND BUSINESS CONSPIRACY.

Under common law, Article I, Bill of Rights, Section 11 of the VA Const.,[21] and the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Const., it is a fundamental right to a jury trial-not to a judge-which determined whether government officers, including judges, were to be held accountable in either civil or criminal jury trials for misbehavior.

Both the U.S. Const. and VA Const. confirmed an absolute right to civil jury trial of the evidence of malfeasance.[22] See Ames E. Pfander, Federal Courts, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme Court’s Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1433 (2000).[23]

Constitutional Limitations and Prohibitions on the Supreme Court of Virginia

The VA Const. and U.S. Const. confirmed that all government power was derived from the consent of the govern—”We the People,” and mandate the separation of power to serve as “distribution grids, apportioning authority…,” to protect the rights of citizens. [24] D. Arthur Kelsey, The Architecture of Judicial Power: Appellate review & Stare Decisis, Virginia State Bar, Virginia Lawyer October 2004, 13.

In that context, echoing James Madison writing in Federalist No. 47, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the violation of the limitation and prohibitions defining the separation of power would create a “despotic government.”Notes on the State of Virginia 196 (1787).[25] Consequently, both Founding Fathers understood that the clear lessons from history show that,

Regarding the need for constitutional checks on 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.

VA General Assembly Established a Decentralized Attorney Disciplinary System

VA Const. VI §§ 1,[26] and 7 [27] diffused the power of the Virginia Judicial Branch by restricting the authority to create courts and appoint judges exclusively to the Virginia General Assembly, thereby limiting the risk of creating dangerous nodes of power within the Judicial Branch inconsistent with the VA Const. and VA Code. To this end, VA Const. VI § 5,[28] and VA Code § 54-1-3915[29] strictly and clearly prohibited the Supreme Court of Virginia jurisdiction and authority to promulgate court rules in conflict with both substantive rights and statutory rights (in short, the courts cannot enact legislation).[30]

Therefore, the Supreme Court of Virginia, held that the power to either suspend or revoke an attorney’s license in all of Virginia, 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).[31] Thus, the General Assembly enacted the Acts of Assembly 1932. p. 139, to establish a decentralize attorney disciplinary system-specifically, not under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia. But, rather the General Assembly gave to each county court of appeals the jurisdiction to discipline attorneys and gave statewide effect to the disciplining of an attorney before that particular court.[32]

Subsequently, VA. Code § 54.1‑3935, was enacted by the General Assembly to re-confirm the decentralized attorney disciplinary system’s use of the jurisdiction of each County Court of Appeals, and circuit courts to discipline an attorney. VA Code §54.1-3935(B), again re-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–The statute specifically denied the Supreme Court of Virginia the power to discipline an attorney directly. Under VA. Code § 54.1‑3915, limited the delegated authority to the Supreme Court of Virginia under VA. Code § 54.1‑3909, by prohibiting the Court from prescribing, adopting, promulgating, and amending rules and regulations of unprofessional conduct, that would be inconsistent with rights under either VA Const. and/or VA Code.[33] Thus, it is incontrovertible that the General Assembly repeatedly rejected creating any centralized attorney disciplinary system under the direct control of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Constitutional Limitations and Prohibitions on the Supreme Court of Virginia

To enforce this control on the Supreme Court of Virginia both the U.S. Const. and VA Const., confirm that there exists no “impunity” or immunity of the absolute right of citizens to access to an impartial court and civil jury trial for malfeasance.[35] See Ames E. Pfander, Federal Courts, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme Court’s Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1433 (2000).

Malfeasance of the Supreme Court of Virginia by affirming the VSBDB the Void Ab Initio Order disbarring Mr. Rodriguez.

The United States Supreme Court in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), established the benchmark as to the challenge to any void ab initio order. There the court stated,

This Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine mandates that when an entity does not have the statutory, constitutional authority, legal power, or jurisdiction to render any order, said order is void ab initio it is a complete nullity from its issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner. All void ab initio order may be attacked in any court at any time, “directly or collaterally.” All void ab initio orders have none of the consequences of a valid adjudication, thus, neither can the doctrine of stare decisis nor res judicata can be applied to give validity to a void order, not subject to becoming valid by the use of either stare decisis or res judicata. Because “[i]t 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 and 45.

Court Orders issued in Violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine

CONCLUSION

In summary, the evidence confirms that by cronyism, obfuscation and legal sophistry there has been as cover-up to conceal the disobedience to the 1^st, 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Const., the limitation and prohibitions on the courts under Article VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of the VA Const., the restricts under VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, 3932, and 3935, the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Article 2(1) of the Charter of the Organization of American States, Article V, XIV, XVII XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, & XXVI of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and Articles 7, 8, 10, & 12 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, by the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of government attorneys, employees, and judges.

But, while every breach of the public trust is a matter of concern, few can be more grievous than those committed by our judiciary. If the Government and courts in the United States are allowed to be lawbreakers, “it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy,” Olmstead v. the United States, 277 U.S. 438, 451 (1928).[37] Thus, the Commission must act pursuant to Articles 7, 8, 10, and 17 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, to assure that Mr. Rodriguez be permitted to secure access to a trial by jury so to have accountability and damages for injury to his business, reputation, profession, right to employment, property rights, and statutory benefits.

A government attorney, employee, and judge are all bound by honor and oath to uphold and defend their respective Constitutions and citizens. The basic tenet is that government is not to be used for personal enrichment and the extending of benefits to the corrupt. Government and the Judicial Branch are to work to ensure that public officials are using their office to further the public interest and not to enrich themselves or others. A United States Court is a public institution, and it has a duty to promote respect for the law.

Respectfully submitted,

Isidoro Rodríguez

[1] The United Nations prohibits the granting of “impunity,” because it defines it as, “the impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account – whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings – since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims.” Updated Set of principles of human rights to combat impunity at https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/109/00/PDF/G0510900.pdf?OpenElement. It was President Theodore Roosevelt who observed that, “[n]o man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. Thus, any grant of “impunity” and/or absolute immunity for acts outside of scope of employment, jurisdiction and/or judicial authority is a violation of the fundamental right to hold government officials accountable for unlawful acts.

[3] Mr. Rodriguez has sued for unlawful acts to deprive him of his fundamental rights in his international pro hoc vice law practice, profession, reputation, employment, as well as statutory right under 26 U.S.C. § 7214 to not be assed taxes grater then permitted by the Internal Revenue Code, statutory right to unemployment compensation benefits under the Social Security Act, and property rights in his Choate Virginia Attorneys Lien by business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499, 500, in retaliation for litigating to oppose acts of malfeasance by the use of unlawful court rules and void ab initio order: (a) usurping and/or permitting the usurping of the exclusive constitutional power of the General Assembly of Virginia to create courts and appoint judges; and, (b) systematically denying access to an impartial court and civil trial by jury to secure accountability/damages for acts outside the scope of employment, jurisdiction, and judicial authority of the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of Federal/Virginia government attorneys, employees, and judges.

[4] The Hon. Judges Gibney also granted “impunity” to nongovernment bad actors Jack Harbeston and Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder, who in 2003 entered Virginia in 2003 to undertake the business conspiracy. Disregarding this evidence, Hon. Judge Gibney held that “the Court will not decide Harbeston’s jurisdictional claim since the Court dismissed the case.” However, in the related RICO action Isidoro Rodriguez v Jack Harbeston et al., USDCT WA No. C11-1601 (JCC) (Ex 4j), that court dismissed the action for lack of venue because “the complaint concerns disbarment proceedings in other jurisdictions. The proper venue to review those decision is those jurisdictions.”

[5] Additional evidence of the above unlawful policy to grant “impunity” and absolute immunity for the use of unlawful court rules issued in violation of and failing to discuss the limitations, prohibitions, and restrictions on the Supreme Court of Virginia under the above cited sections of U.S. Const. VA Const., and VA Code, can obtained from reading the Attorney General of Virginia’ Brief in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, and Motion and Brief in Support of Rule 11 Sanctions of Pre-filing Injunction and Monetary Sanctions (Exhibit 2v and 2vai). See also In re: Isidoro Rodriguez, States Tax Court Disbarment Order, October 16, 2009, Exhibit 1, pages 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, wherein the USTC surreally interpreted a part of VA Code § 54.1-3909, to assume away the restrictions on the delegation of authority to permit illegal court rules violating VA Const., and VA Code; see also Exhibit 2, page 9; Exhibit 4dii, page 82 of 83, on the grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity for acts outside of scope of employment and jurisdiction by unlawful acts.

[6] Tarkington, Margaret. ―A Free Speech Right to Impugn Judicial Integrity in Court Proceedings, 51 B.C. L. Rev. 363 at 391 (2010). (internal footnote omitted).

[7] “Some bankruptcy courts construe costs assessed against an attorney through disciplinary proceedings as a nondischargeable ‘fine, penalty or forfeiture’, thereby fostering a class of lawyers who cannot return to the bar due to indigency.” POPULAR, Inc. (Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored), “Protecting Judicial Whistleblowers in The War on Poverty: A Proposed International Initiative Focusing on The United States,” p 5 (November 2008). Available at http://www.popular4people.org/files/POPULAR_WhitePaper_finalized.pdf. See also, In re Logal, 381 BR 706 (Bankr. Court, ND Indiana 2007).

[8] It was alleged in previous RICO actions (Exhibits 2a, 4a, 4j, and 4k) that Eric Holder as Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (“DOJ”) during the Clinton Administration undertook a business conspiracy to damage Mr. Rodriguez’s successful international litigation practice representing nonresident Hispanic U.S. and Colombian citizens against 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 the Fourth Cir. William Rehnquist dissenting)(there the United States Supreme Court reversed the USCA for the 4^th Circuit, to order an evidentiary hearing before a jury of the acts outside the scope of employment, rejecting DOJ’s surreal argument that a DEA agent acted within his scope of employment while negligently causing a car accident while having sex and DWI., See also: 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) (challenge to President Clinton’s Executive Order 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) (Mr. Rodriguez argued and won the right to hold accountable DOJ’s Assistant U.S. Attorneys accountable for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1978); and, Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (Mr. Rodriguez 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).

[9] Note the order dated October 31, 2007, of the Hon. Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John G. Roberts, sitting as Circuit Justice of the USCT Appeals for the 4^th and District of Columbia Circuits, denying Mr. Rodriguez’s application for an injunction of the unlawful rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia (Exhibit 4bi).

[10] The evidence in court documents confirm a meanness in retaliation to further punish Mr. Rodriguez, by unlawfully assessed both he and his wife federal taxes grater then allowed by law in violation of 26 U.S.C § 7214, by striking and summarily declaring “frivolous” their 2006 business/litigation expenses against the VSBDB void ab initio order, not permitting discovery of IRS employees, and denying the right to subpoena them. Also, after Mr. Rodriuez was terminated as a contract attorney based upon the use of the VSBDB void ab initio order, unlawful denying to him his right to Virginia unemployment compensation benefits under the Social Security Act (Exhibit 4g and 4h).

[11] “Justice delayed is justice denied” a legal maxim meaning that if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all. . . ..” Wikipedia.

[12] More than 214 years ago in Marbary v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall first defined for U.S. jurisprudence the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, writing that, “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” See also Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, a void order is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. This is because “[a] void judgment does not create any binding obligation.” Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L Ed. 370 (1940); and, Ex parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861 (1882), holding that an illegal order is forever void.

[13] See Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (Rehnquist dissenting) (Mr. Rodriguez argued and won by before the U.S. Supreme Court the holding that there was a right to an evidentiary hearing before a jury on the alleged acts of government employees outside the scope of employment (https://www.oyez.org/advocates/isidoro_rodriguez).

[14] Sir Edward Coke found that Article 39 of the Magna Carta restricted the power of judges to act outside of their jurisdiction such proceedings would be void, and actionable,

[15] In investigating and considering the merits of this complaint for the usurping of legislative constitutional authority by the Washington D.C. Oligarchy Federal/Virginia government attorneys, employees, and judge to permit the promulgation of court rules by violation of the limitation and prohibitions under Article VI of the VA Const., as well as the restrictions in VA. Code § 54.1‑3915, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights must recall that Charter was establish in part to respond to the sorry behavior of German and other European judges, lawyers, and law schools assuming away the limitation and prohibitions of their respective constitutions that aided to power Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (“NAZI”) before World War II. Because, “[b]y the time the gas vans came and the human slaughter factories were built in Auschwitz and the other death camps, the murder of the six million Jews and other persecuted minorities was done completely within the framework of German law.” Yad Vshem, The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes Remembrance Authority, 2004.

[16] “I. COMBATING IMPUNITY: GENERAL OBLIGATIONS, PRINCIPLE 1. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF STATES TO TAKE. EFFECTIVE ACTION TO COMBAT IMPUNITY, “Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations.” E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, at page 7, Updated Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity.

[17] There the U.S. Supreme Court held in an action against a State court judge, that pursuant to common law a state court judge who acts without jurisdiction, or acts in violation of Constitutional, or acts in violation of statutory prohibitions expressly depriving him of jurisdiction or judicial capacity, judicial immunity is lost. This is because a State judge would be immune from suit only if he did not act outside of his judicial capacity and/or was not performing any act expressly prohibited by statute. See Block, Stump v Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity, 4980 Duke L.J. 879 (l980). This is exactly what the evidence confirms the Supreme Court of Virginia has done.

[18] Misprision of treason to violate the VA Const., is defined pursuant to VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482.

[19] See Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., excellent legal research paper dated April 15, 2016, entitled, Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting, http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf. As Dr. Cordero explains in the introduction of his ground-breaking research paper,

[20] Administrative decisions, although essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not been regarded as judicial acts. In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend immunity to a county judge who had been charged in a criminal indictment with discriminating on the basis of race in selecting trial jurors for the county’s courts. The Court reasoned:

[21] Article I, Bill of Rights, Section 11. Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking or damaging of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases.

That no person shall be deprived of his . . .property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts; . . ..

That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred. . ..

[22] 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)

[23] See Justice John F. Molloy, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, Paragon House (2004). “When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest. When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. . .. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench? When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.”

[24] Federalist No. 47 p 109, states that, “[the VA Const.], declares, . . . ‘that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise powers properly belonging to the other. . ..”

[25] More than 229 years ago Mr. James Madison in Federalist No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788, first addressed the concern that, “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Thus, forecasting unlawful acts outside the scope of employment, jurisdiction and judicial authority the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy by disregarding the limitation and prohibitions of the U.S. Const., VA Const., VA Code, and U.S. Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

[26] 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)

[27] 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. . .. (Emphasis added)

[28] 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….

[29] 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. . .. (Emphasis added)

[30] As stated by another Virginia attorney. Chief Justice Marshall, “[We judge] 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. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 404 (1816) (Emphasis added).

[31]The Court 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, “[t]he powers to go further and make suspension or revocation of license effective in all other court of the Commonwealth [this] must be conferred by statute.” (Emphases added).

[32] See 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; see also David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954) http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmrval/vol2/iss1/2.

[33] Federalist 47, p. 109, states that, “[the VA Const.], declares, . . . ‘that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise powers properly belonging to the other. . ..”

[34] As Virginia Circuit Judge the Hon. D. Arthur Kelsey, wrote, “The Constitution does not authorize the judiciary to write laws that the legislature failed to enact, or to repeal those that violate no recognizable constitutional principle, or to amend laws that are reasonably adequate but nonetheless can be improved upon. As Thomas Jefferson put it, a judiciary that pushes beyond these limits would place us all under the “despotism of an oligarchy” —one flatly at odds with the democratic principles of our republic.” VSB Journal, Hon. D. Arthur Kelsey, Law & Politics: The Imperative of Judicial Self‑Restraint, (2004). at p.5.

[35] VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, confirm that there is no judicial immunity for acts outside of authority or jurisdiction by making it a Class 2 felony for, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority.”

[36] “A judgment which is void . . . is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists.” People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448].

[37] The United States Supreme Court has observed in, United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 562 (1961): “[A] democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.”

[38] The famed 19th-century orator Daniel Webster rightly noted, “[t]here can be no office in which the sense of responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty, and property of every man. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails, and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven.” Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1851), Vol. III, pp. 6‑7.

UNITED NATIONS COMPLAINT FOR GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS, EMPLOYEES AND JUDGES ACTING OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDCITON AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT THEMSELVES “IMPUNITY” AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE LIMITATION AND PROHIBITIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUES OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ARTICLES 7, 8, 10, & 12 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS, AND RELEVANT PRINCIPALS.

14 Thursday Sep 2017

≈ Leave a comment

Human Rights Council
Complaint Procedure Form

– You are kindly requested to submit your complaint in writing in one of the six official UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) and to use these languages in any future correspondence;

– Anonymous complaints are not admissible;

– It is recommended that your complaint does not exceed eight pages, excluding enclosures.

– You are kindly requested not to use abusive or insulting language.

Information concerning the author (s) of the communication or the alleged victim (s) if other than the author

Individual Group of individuals NGO Other

Last name: Rodriguez

First name(s): Isidoro

Nationality: United States Citizen

Address for correspondence on this complaint: 2678 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227, Vienna, VA 22180, USA.

Tel and fax: (please indicate country and area code) USA 1.571.477.5350/fax 703.876-5385.

E-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com

Website: http://www.isidororodriguez.com

Submitting the complaint:

On the author’s own behalf: and,

On behalf of other persons: (Citizens of the United States)

Information on the State concerned

Name of the State concerned and, as applicable, name of public authorities responsible for the alleged violation(s): (a) the United States of America; (b) the Hon. Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; (c) the Hon. Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Eleventh, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits; (d) the Hon. Judges of the United States Tax Court; (e) United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; (f) United States District Court for the District of Columbia; (g) Office of the United States Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; (h) Office of the United States Assistant Attorney General for the Eastern District of Virginia; (i) Office of the United States Assistant Attorney General for the District of Columbia; (j) Tax Division of the United States Department of Justice; (k) the Office of Commissioner, United States Internal Revenue Service; (l) the Hon. Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia; (m) Fairfax County Court of Appels and Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia; (n) the attorneys in the Office of Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia; (o) officers of the Virginia State Bar Association; (p) attorney members of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board; (q) officers of the Bar Association for the District of Columbia; (r) employees of the Virginia Employment Commission; and, (s) certain agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

III. Facts of the complaint and nature of the alleged violation(s)

The complaint procedure addresses consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances.

Please detail, in chronological order, the facts and circumstances of the alleged violations including dates, places and alleged perpetrators and how you consider that the facts and circumstances described violate your rights or that of the concerned person(s).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez (“Mr. Rodriguez”) files this United Nations complaint and related submission of information to the Special Procedures, on behalf of himself and citizens of the United States based on the evidence of the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of United States (“Federal”) and Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia”) government attorneys, and employees acts outside the scope of authority and judges’ void orders issued without jurisdiction and/or judicial authority in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine[1](Exhibit 1, 2, 3b and 3c, 4a thru 4m). Furthermore, the Complaint and related pleading are filed based upon the surreal unlawful void orders (Exhibit 2a, 2i, and 2iiii), granting “impunity” [2] and absolute immunity for unlawful acts and void orders issued in defiance of the limitation and prohibitions of the Federal and Virginia Constitutions and Statutes, Articles 7, 8, 10, & 12 of the International Bill of Rights, and relevant principals to systematically deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury to secure accountability for malfeasance and the business conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499, 500.[3] (See attached Memorandum of Law in Support of Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez’s United Nations Complaint And Submission Of Information To The Special Procedures About His Challenge to The Grant Of “Impunity” For the Violations of The Limitation and Prohibitions of The Constitutions and Statutes of The United States and Commonwealth of Virginia, Articles 7, 8, 10, & 12 of the International Bill of Rights, And Relevant Principals [“Law Memo”]).

DETAILED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EVIDENCING UNLAWFUL ACTS

Mr. Rodriguez, is a 71-year-old citizen of the United States of America (“United States”) of Spanish/Puerto Rican descent born in the South Bronx, N.Y., who as a U.S. Ex-Pat established a unique pro hoc vice[4] civil litigation/corporate practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia”) and Barranquilla, Republic of Colombia (“Colombia”),[5] to serve non-resident United States and Colombian individuals and businesses.[6]

Subsequent evidence confirms that in retaliation for Mr. Rodriguez successfully representing non-resident U.S./Colombian citizens/entities against the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) policies of the Clinton Administration under former U.S. Deputy Attorneys General Eric Holder (“Holder”), in 2004 Holder as a Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney,[7] entered into a business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499, 500, with Mr. Jack Harbeston (Managing Partner of Mr. Rodriguez’s client Sea Search Armada and Armada Company (“SSA”)) to injure Mr. Rodriguez’s international law practice, good reputation, profession, right to employment, and statutory Virginia Attorney’s Lien, by entering Virginia to simultaneous file two fraudulent bar complaints with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”), for his:

litigating pursuant to VA Code 54.1-3932 and Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion #1325 issued to Mr. Rodriguez on February 27, 1990 (Exhibit 3a), to protect his property interest in his Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on the SSA’s claim to sunken treasure trove aboard the sunken 1707 Galleon San Jose off the coast of Colombia) (See Report’s on Pres. of the Colombia confirming Dec. 2, 2015, of finding treasure trove valued at $18 Billion USD), and,
for litigating to enforce his rights as a father to protect his 13-year-old U.S. citizen son from a “zone of war” pursuant to The Hague Convention, VA Code, and Joint Custody Agreement (Exhibit 4a, 4ai, and 4aii) (see also http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).

In response to the fraudulent VSBDB bar complaints filed for litigating to enforce statutory rights, Mr. Rodriguez filed motions and briefs challenging the jurisdiction of the VSBDB as a “court” and the authority of its members as “judges.” Mr. Rodriguez argued in motions and briefs that the VSBDB was a “kangaroo court” illegally created and appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia’s abuse of delegated authority from the General Assembly under 54.1‑3909. The Supreme Court of Virginia had acted outside their jurisdiction and judicial authority to promulgate unauthorized court rules violating the limitations and prohibitions on the Court under Article VI, §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”), and the restrictions on the delegated authority to the Court under VA Code § 54.1‑3915, 3935, thereby denying due process and equal protection mandated by the 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the United States Constitution (“U.S. Const.”) (See page 15 of the Law Memo).

On November 27, 2006, the VSBDB denied the motions and issued a Void Ab Initio Order disbarring Mr. Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights (Exhibits 3b) (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf). On June 29, 2007, the Supreme Court of Virginia in an unpublished summary order affirmed the VSBDB void ab initio disbarment order (Exhibit 3c).

Thereafter in furtherance of the business conspiracy of Holder et al., the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of government attorneys (Exhibit 2av and 2avi), employees of the Internal Revenue Service and the Virginia Employment Commission (4g and 4h), and the Honourable Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Honourable Judges of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States Tax Court, unlawfully used and abused the judicially created doctrine of stare decises and res judicata (See Law Memo, page 19 of 23), to affirm the VSBDB void ab initio order to injure Mr. Rodriguez’s international law practice, business, reputation, profession, statutory property right, and the right to employment in violation of the 1^st, 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amend. U.S. Const., Art. VI of VA Const., the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Social Security Act,[8] by issuing the following administrative and court orders:

Ex 1a. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, (October 16, 2009) Unnumbered Order of Disbarment by Art III US Tax Court based upon the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to use stare decisis and res judicata and give legal effect to other void court orders affirming the illegal void order of the VSBDB. The court refused to address the violation of limitations and prohibitions under the VA Const. Art. VI, and VA Code VA Code § 54.1-3915 on the General Assembly’s delegation of authority under VA Code § 54.1-3909 to promulgate court rules to the Supreme Court of Virginia, thus by legal sophistry obfuscate and did not discuss that the VSBDB unlawfully disbarred an attorney for litigating to enforce his statutory rights, was an unlawful “kangaroo” court, and the VSBDB members unlawfully appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia as “judges.”

Ex 1b. Summary denial of a motion to vacate in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

Ex 1c. Summary denial of a motion for reconsideration for violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

Ex 2a. 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‑JAB (April 12, 2013), memo and order denying access to impartial ct. and jury trial by granting “impunity” to government attorneys, employees, and judges violation of the limitation and prohibitions of VA Const., VA Code, and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

Ex 2ai. Order Denying Motions for Trial by Jury and Grand Jury.

Ex 2aii. Order granting “impunity” by enjoining and denying future access to court.

Ex 2aiii. Order 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638, affirming DC order grant of “impunity.” injunction and prior restraint.

Ex 2aiii. Order 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638, affirming Dist. Ct. violation of the limitation and prohibitions of VA Const., VA Code, and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

Ex 3a. 1990 VSB LEO #1325 confirming IR right to enforce statutory attorney lien.

Ex 3b. 2006 VSBDB Order disbarring IR for litigating to enforce statutory rights issued in violation of the limitation and prohibitions of VA Const., VA Code, and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

Ex. 3c. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar, Supreme Court of Virginia, Record No. 070283, summary decision affirming VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4a. IR v Legal Times et al., U.S. Dist. Ct DC NO. 07-0975 (PLF) Memo and Order summary dismissal and denial of action filed in 2003 to enjoin VSBDB as a “kangaroo court.

Ex 4ai. U.S. Dist. Ct Order denying a motion for reconsideration.

Ex 4aii. USCA DC No. 07-5234 (Dec. 2007) deny injunction against VSBDB et al. in IR v. Legal Times et al.

Ex 4aiii. USCA DC No. 07-5234 (July. 2008) order aff’d dismissal in IR v. Legal Times et al.

Ex 4bi. Isidoro Rodriguez v Virginia State Bar, USSC 07-419 (October 31, 2007) the Hon. Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John G. Roberts, sitting as Circuit Justice of the USCT Appeals for the 4^th and District of Columbia Circuits, denied Mr. Rodriguez’s application for an injunction of the unlawful rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia and void order issued in violation of Art. VI of the VA Const., VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915, and 3935, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine (Exhibit 4bi).

Ex 4bii. Isidoro Rodriguez v Virginia State Bar, USSC 07-419, Nov. 2007,2007, denial of Petition for Cert., to review and vacate VSBDB Void Ab Initio disbarment order.

Ex 4c & 4ci. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, USCA 3rd Cir., No. 08-8037, docket and letter confirming denial of a motion for reconsider of use of stare decisis to use the VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4cii. Isidoro Rodriguez v 3^rd Cir. Standing Committee on Attorney Discipline, USSC No. 08-1121 (March 2009) Motion to USCA 3d Cir Justice Suter to enjoin use of stare decisis to affirm the VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4di. In the Matter of Isidoro Rodriguez, USCA 4th Cir No. 06-9518 (April 2009) unpublished order of disbarment of IR based upon stare decisis to reciprocally use the VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4dii. In the matter of Isidoro Rodriguez, USCA 4th Cir N. 06-9518, 3^rd Pet for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to 18 USC § 3771 to enjoin grant of immunity for the VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4diii. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, USCA 4th Cir No-1444 (April 2008), denial of Writ of Mandamus.

Ex 4e. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, USCA 2nd Cir (July 2009) Order of Disbarment based upon VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4fi. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, USCA DC Cir. No. 08-7134, Disbarment based upon VSBDB void ab initio order.

EX 4fii. Denial of rehearing on unlawful use of VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4gi. Isidoro & Irene Rodriguez v Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, USTC No. 10691-09, an action challenging IRS for “assessing taxes more than permitted by law” by it simply declaring as “frivolous” and striking the 2006 business/litigation expenses against VSBDB void ab initio order, the USTC summarily withdraw Mr. Rodriguez as counsel of record based on its earlier disbarment in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine Ex 1a, b, and c.

Ex 4gii. Isidoro & Irene Rodriguez v Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, USTC No. 10691-09, Denial of motion to disqualify an opposition to transfer order from D.C. Cir. to 4th Cir., based upon the motion of U.S. DOJ Tax Division motion.

Ex 4h. Isidoro Rodriguez v Virginia Unemployment Compensation, Administrative order denying unemployment compensation benefits to IR based upon VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4hi. Isidoro Rodriguez v Virginia Unemployment Compensation, Ct of App. of VA No0291-09-4, Mr. Rodriguez’s petition for en banc hearing of denial of benefits based upon VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4hii. Isidoro Rodriguez v Virginia Unemployment Compensation, Ct of App. of VA No0291-09-4, (Nov. 2009), En Banc order aff’d VEC use of VSBDB void ab initio order to deprive IR of unemployment comp. benefits.

Ex 4i. Isidoro Rodriguez v District of Columbia Court of Appeals Committee on Admissions, USCA DC No. 08-OA-26 (Sept 2008), Response to IR petition for writ of mandamus in support of the use of VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4j. Isidoro Rodriguez v Jack Harbeston et al., USDCT WA No. C11-1601 (JCC) Order dismissal suit for lack of venue because disbarment occurred in other circuits based on the use of stare decisis to aff’d the VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4k. In re Isidoro Rodriguez Litigation, US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation MDL No. 2307 denial of action for consolidation of Dist. Ct EDVA and WDWA in an effort to obtain consideration of an impartial court.

Ex 4L. Sea Search Armada v. the Republic of Colombia, USCA DC NO. 11-7144 (March 2012), Order denying IR motion to Intervene to protect statutory property rights in Choate Attorneys Lien on treasure trove from the effect of VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4m. In the Matter of Discipline of Isidoro Rodriguez USSC No. D-02466, the order of suspension and disbarment of IR without hearing based upon Clerk’s use of stare decisis of the VSBDB void ab initio order.

Ex 4mi. In the Matter of Discipline of Isidoro Rodriguez USSC No. D-02466, IR response to USSCT Show Cause Order based on VSBDB void ab initio order.

Due to the above unlawful acts and void orders in October 2010, Mr. Rodriguez filed 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‑JAB, to secure accountability and damages for the: (a) depriving him of his statutory and fundamental rights; (b) injuring his international pro hoc vice law practice, profession, reputation, employment; (c) depriving him and his wife of their statutory right under 26 U.S.C. § 7214 to not be assessed taxes greater than permitted by the Internal Revenue Code; (d) depriving him of his statutory right to unemployment compensation benefits under the Social Security Act; (e) depriving him of his property rights in his Choate Virginia Attorneys Lien by business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499, 500; (f) usurping and/or permitting the usurping of the exclusive constitutional power of the General Assembly of Virginia to create courts and appoint judges; and, (g) for the systematic denying access to an impartial court and civil trial by jury to secure accountability/damages for acts outside the scope of employment, jurisdiction, and judicial authority.

In response the Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., first, ordered the summary dismissal of 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‑JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013) (Exhibits 2a, 2aii, 2aiii and 2aiv), denied Mr. Rodriguez motions for a jury trial to obtain accountability and damages for malfeasance by violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and business conspiracy in violation of VA Code § 18.2.499, 550, and, second, granted the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of Federal/Virginia government attorneys, employees, and judges “impunity” and absolute immunity for their unlawful acts by,

[enjoining of Mr. Rodriguez] from filing any lawsuit in any federal court of the United States involved in any way his disbarment or the allegations leading to his disbarment [by the VSBDB and federal courts]. The Court further enjoins the plaintiff from filing any lawsuit in any federal court of the United States against any of the defendants in this case, against any judge or retired judge, against any United States Attorney or member of a United States Attorney’s staff, against the Attorney General of Virginia or any past or present member of the Attorney General’s staff, and against the Virginia State Bar or any agents of the Bar. The plaintiff is further enjoined from filing any additional pleadings in the instant case, other than pleadings necessary to perfect and present an appeal. [As well as ordering a prior restraint by requiring Mr. Rodriguez to file a motion] in the federal court in which he wishes to file [any other type of suit], for leave of Court to file suit. . ..” [9]

Mr. Rodriguez filed petitions with President Barrack Obama (Exhibit 5a thru 5b); filed petitions with his representatives from Northern Virginia in the Virginia General Assembly (Exhibit 6) (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ and, https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5); and, filed petitions with his representatives in the U.S. Congress and Senate (Exhibit 7).

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

1- Steps taken by or on behalf of the alleged victim(s) to exhaust domestic remedies– please provide details on the procedures which have been pursued, including recourse to the courts and other public authorities as well as national human rights institutions[10], the claims made, at which times, and what the outcome was:

For purposes of not restating the above, see pages 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and attach exhibits for detail.

2- If domestic remedies have not been exhausted on grounds that their application would be ineffective or unreasonably prolonged, please explain the reasons in detail:

All domestic remedies have been exhausted in seek an investigation and reversal of the void ad initio order granting “impunity” (Exhibit 2a, 2ai, 2aii, and 2aiii)

Submission of communication to other human rights bodies

1- Have you already submitted the same matter to a special procedure, a treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaint procedures in the field of human rights?

Yes

2- If so, detail which procedure has been, or is being pursued, which claims have been made, at which times, and the current status of the complaint before this body:

First, Mr. Rodriguez filed on May 15, 2016, a Petition (P-926-16) (Exhibit 9a) with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), and a Request for Precautionary Measures (MC-367-16) (Exhibit 9b, see http://www.isidororodriguez.com). Petition (P-926-16), was only provisionally registered and has been under “study” without action for more than 18 months, and the Request for Precautionary Measures (MC-367) was summarily denied without explanation (Exhibit 10), despite the evidence of “exceptional circumstances” which are “inextricably tied to the merits of the matter” of the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by jury (Exhibit 11).

Second, Mr. Rodriguez in addition to the Instant Complaint, a Submission of Information to Special Procedures has been filed.

Request for confidentiality

In case the communication complies with the admissibility criteria set forth in Council resolution 5/1, kindly note that it will be transmitted to the State concerned so as to obtain the views of the latter on the allegations of violations.

Please state whether you would like your identity or any specific information contained in the complaint to be kept confidential.

Request for confidentiality (Please tick as appropriate): Yes No

Please indicate which information you would like to be kept confidential. None

Date: September 11, 2017 Signature:

N.B. The blanks under the various sections of this form indicate where your responses are required. You should take as much space as you need to set out your responses. Your complaint should not exceed eights pages.

VII. Checklist of supporting documents

Please provide copies (not original) of supporting documents (kindly note that these documents will not be returned) in one of the six UN official languages.

– Decisions of domestic courts and authorities on the claim made (a copy of the relevant national legislation is also helpful):

– Complaints sent to any other procedure mentioned in section V (and any decisions taken under that procedure):

– Any other evidence or supporting documents deemed necessary:

VIII. Where to send your communications?

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit
OHCHR- Palais Wilson

United Nations Office at Geneva
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: (+41 22) 917 90 11
E-mail: CP@ohchr.org

Website: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspx

[1] 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, that cannot be made valid by either stare decisis/res judicata, 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] Regarding “impunity” and absolute immunity from accountability, President Theodore Roosevelt observed that, “[n]o man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.” The United Nations adopted this concept to prohibit the granting of “impunity,” which it defines as, “the impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account – whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings – since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims.” Thus, any grant of “impunity” and/or absolute immunity from accountability for acts outside of scope of employment, jurisdiction and/or judicial authority is a violation of the fundamental right to hold government officials liable for criminal and tortious acts (Updated Set of principles https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/109/00/PDF/G0510900.pdf?OpenElement).

[3] Va Code § 18.2‑499. Combination to injure others in their reputation, trade, business or profession: right of employees: (a) Any two or more persons who shall combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of wilfully and maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever, . . ., shall be jointly and severally guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanour. Such punishment shall be in addition to any civil relief recoverable under § 18.2‑500.

[4] “Pro hac vice …The phrase usu. refers to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a particular jurisdiction but who is admitted there temporarily for the purpose of conducting a particular case.” 8^th Ed Black’s Law Dictionary. 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 emphasizing the importance of pro hoc vice litigators “bringing claims that would be too unpopular for resident lawyers to bring,” based on animus of a judge or court (Emphasis added)

[5] After serving from 1977 to 1983 as an appointee in the Carter and Reagan Administration (last position as Senior Executive Service Director of Office of Civil Rights, USDA), Mr. Rodriuez went to Colombia as Contracts Administrator/Assistant General Counsel, Morrison Knudsen International, on the $2 Billion EXXON Cerrejon Coal Mine Project, Guajira, Colombia.

[6] In 1995 the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the uniqueness of Mr. Rodriguez’s practice 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), after Mr. Rodriuez was granted cert., argued and won Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (Chief Justice Rehnquist dissenting) (Court reversed USCA 4^th Cir. and then U.S. Att. Gen Eric Holder, to order that a non-resident Hispanic had the right of access to an evidentiary hearing of the DEA agent’s acts outside the scope of employment by DUI while having sex and causing a car accident in Barranquilla, Colombia).

[7] It is alleged (Exhibits 2a, 4a, 4j, and 4k), that Holder and other government attorneys and judges conspired to damage Mr. Rodriguez’s international litigation practice in retaliation for successfully representing non-resident U.S./Colombian citizens against the unlawful policies: see Katia Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), supra. (https://www.oyez.org/advocates/isidoro_rodriguez); See also: 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) (challenge to President Clinton’s Executive Order 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) (Mr. Rodriguez argued and won the right to hold accountable DOJ’s Assistant U.S. Attorneys accountable for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1978); and, Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (Mr. Rodriguez 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).

[8] The evidence confirm a bureaucratic meanness to punish Mr. Rodriguez, by not only unlawfully disbarring him as a member of the bar of the Article III U.S. Tax Court based upon the VSBDB void ab initio order, but also to assessing against Mr. Rodriguez and his wife federal taxes grater then allowed by law in violation of 26 U.S.C § 7214, to affirm the striking 2006 business/litigation expenses against the VSBDB void ab initio order, deny discovery of IRS employees’ summarily declaring “frivolous” litigation expenses, and denying the right to subpoena to confront hostile witness. Also, after Mr. Rodriuez was terminated as a contract attorney based upon the affirming of the VSBDB void ab initio order to deny Virginia unemployment compensation benefits (Exhibit 4g and 4h).

[9] The Hon. Judges Gibney also granted “impunity” to nongovernment bad actors Jack Harbeston and Holder, who entered Virginia in 2003 to undertake the business conspiracy, holding that “the Court will not decide Harbeston’s (sic) jurisdictional claim since the Court dismissed the case.” But, in the related RICO action Isidoro Rodriguez v Jack Harbeston et al., USDCT WA No. C11-1601 (JCC) (Ex 4j), the action was dismissed for lack of venue because “the complaint concerns disbarment proceedings in other jurisdictions. The proper venue to review those decision is those jurisdictions.”

[10] National human rights institutions, established and operating under the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions (the Paris Principles), in particular in regard to quasi-judicial competence, may serve as effective means of addressing individual human rights violations.

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, 500, 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.

15 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, DEnial of right to civil trial by jury, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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.

Greetings:

As a strong supporter of the Trump Administration and “old” Republican,[1] 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.[2]

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.[3] 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,[4] 5,[5] and 7[6] of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”), VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909,[7] 54.1‑3915,[8] and VA Code § 54.1‑3935,[9] the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine,[10] and the 5^th,[11] 7^th[12] and 14^th[13] 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.[14]

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Isidoro Rodriguez

[1]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.

[2]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.

[3] 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 . . .

[4] 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).

[5] 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)

[6] 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 . . ..

[7] VA. Code § 54.1‑3909. The Supreme Court may promulgate rules and regulations: . . . Prescribing procedures for disciplining, suspending, and attorneys.

[8] 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.

[9] 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. …

[10] 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).

[11] Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states in relevant part, “No person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law; . . ..”

[12] Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, grantees the right to a trial by jury for alleged malfeasance by any government employee, including judges.

[13] The Due Process Clause of Section 1 of the 14^th 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.”

[14]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).

Supplement to Petition P-926-16, and Request for Precautionary Measures to the United States pursuant to Articles 25 and 36.3 A/B, of the IACHR Rules of Procedure to Halt Serious and Urgent Irreparable Harm to the fundamental rights of Citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by the Systematic Denying of Access to an Impartial Court and Civil Trial by Jury in Violation of the Limitations and Prohibitions of Art. IV Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, VA Code, the 5th, 7th, and 14th Amend to the U.S. Constitution and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

30 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, Impunity in violation of the Common Law

≈ Leave a comment

In support of IACHR Petition P-926-16, which has been “under study” for more than 12 months since May 15, 2016 , this is a supplement and urgently request for the Commission to call on the United States to adopt precautionary measures to stop the irreparable harm to all citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia by the concealing promulgation and use of Illegal Supreme Court of Virginia Court Rules.

Evidence has established a pattern and practice by the Virginia and Federal Executive/Judicial Branches during the Obama Administration, to conceal since 2008 the promulgation and use of illegal Supreme Court of Virginia Rules issued in violations of the restrictions, limitations, and prohibitions of Article VI, §§ 1,[1] 5,[2] and 7[3] of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”), VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909,[4] 54.1‑3915,[5] and VA Code § 54.1‑3935,[6] the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine,[7] and the 5^th,[8] 7^th[9] and 14^th[10] Amendments to the United States Constitution (“U.S. Const.”). Thus, precautionary measures are urgently needed because:

First, in violation of the common law, VA. Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the Federal and Virginia Executive/Judicial Branches have unilaterally declared themselves unaccountable for acts outside of jurisdiction and scope of employment and absolutely immune from suit-thereby placing themselves above the law for the illegal acts evidenced herein including a business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2‑499,[11] to damage the right of pro hac vice attorneys to conduct interstate commerce.[12]

Second, the evidence establishes irrefutable proof of violation of VA. Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the Supreme Court of Virginia, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court, as well as the United States Courts of Appeals (“USCA”) for the 2nd, 4th, 11th, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits, United States Tax Court, Court of Appeals of Virginia, and Fairfax Court Circuit Court, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, by use of illegal court rules creating an unauthorized centralized attorney disciplinary system under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia.[13] Thus, there colluding in to permit the punishing of an attorney for aggressively litigating to enforce his statutory rights (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf), places a “chilling effect” on all other attorneys to act independent on behalf of the citizens of Virginia, It provides indisputable evidence that all attorneys will be subject to bar disciplinary proceedings and punishment for no other act than justifiably questioning/impugning judicial jurisdiction and reputation, including the “suspension from the practice of law,”[14] marking, “for many if not most attorneys the gravesite of their careers.”[15] See The Official End of Judicial Accountability Through Federal Rights Litigation: Ashcroft v.Iqbal [129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009)], From the Selected Works of Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal, National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc., Summer 2011.

Third, monetary damages will neither make whole, nor protect, nor secure the fundamental rights of the citizens of Virginia from irreparable harm by the malfeasance of the systematic denying access to an impartial and trial by jury by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court to conceal and not permitting challenges to the unlawful rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Fourth, the Federal Judicial Branch has promulgated court rules depriving not only citizens of Virginia, but citizens of all the United States of their fundamental right pursuant to the holding in Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 277 (1985), to retain independent pro hac vice attorneys willing to stop alleged judicial misconduct in a particular jurisdiction.

I. Beneficiaries

The beneficiaries of this request for precautionary measures are the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by compelling compliance with the cited provision of VA Const., VA Code, U.S. Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, pursuant to “federalism,”[16]

II. Facts

To assure citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia of access to an impartial court and the independence attorneys to protect their statutory rights, the General Assembly enacted VA Code § 54.1‑3935, to guarantee the limitations and prohibitions on the Judicial Branch under Article VI, §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the VA Const. Therefore, the General Assembly established a horizontal decentralized attorney disciplinary system, that was mandated not to be under the direct control of the Supreme Court of Virginia, but rather under the control of each county court of appeals. This objective was underscored by the General Assembly enacting VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915, and 54.1‑3909, denying the Supreme Court of Virginia authority to promulgate court rules in violation of the statutory horizontal decentralized attorney disciplinary system.

Writing for the majority in Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 277 (1985), Associate Justice Lewis Franklin Powell (himself a well-known Virginia litigator), wrote that the right to a pro hac vice practice of law is a “fundamental right,” because it is important to have independent pro hac vice litigators, “bringing claims that would be too unpopular for resident lawyers to bring.” (Emphasis added). The majority of the United States Supreme Court confirmed the principle of the need to have an independent attorney class, rejecting emphatically the dissent of Chief Justice/Circuit Justice of the USCA 4^th/D.C. Cir., Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Pursuant to Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, supra., in 1987 Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez established as a sole practitioner a unique pro hac vice civil litigation practice in Virginia and the Republic of Colombia. In 1995 the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed to the media the uniqueness of Mr. Rodriquez’s pro hac vice law office after he argued and won, Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (action by nonresident Hispanic for the negligent acts of the U.S. government employee action outside the scope of employment). The Clerk states 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).[17]

Mr. Rodriguez’s unique pro hac vice practice in various jurisdictions specialized in representing nonresident U.S./Colombian Hispanic citizens in claims too unpopular or politically dangerous for U.S. resident lawyers to bring against the United States Department of Justice under the direction of Mr. Eric Holder during the Clinton Administration: i.e. from the USCA 2^nd Cir., Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, No. 93‑6019 and 96‑6145 (DOJ’s attorneys can be held accountable for unauthorized interception of nonresident Hispanic U.S./Colombian citizens’ fund transfers in violation of the Electronic Communications Act (“ECPA”); from the USCA 11^th Cir., Lopez v. the First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (997) (DOJ and the banks can be held accountable for unlawful access to nonresident Hispanic U.S./Colombian citizens account information and interception of wire communications); and, from the USCA D.C. Cir., Cooperative Multiactive de Empleados de Distribuidores de Drogas Coopservir Ltda. v. Newcomb, et al., No 99‑5190, S Ct. No 99‑1893 (challenging President Clinton’s issuance of an Executive Order bill of attainder against nonresident Hispanic U.S./Colombian citizens and businesses).

The evidence confirms in response Mr. Rodriguez’s pro hac vice practice the Supreme Court of Virginia established under its control a “vertical” centralized attorney discipline system by promulgating and using court rules usurping the exclusive legislative power and authority of the General Assembly of Virginia to establish “courts” and appoint judges. By these unlawful court rules the Supreme Court of Virginia did away with the exclusive control by each County to discipline an attorney, by inventing the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (hereinafter the “VSBDB”) as a “kangaroo court” and appointed VSBDB members as “judges” with authority and jurisdiction to discipline attorneys. In relevant past, Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia Part 6, § IV, 13-6, established the VSBDB to hear, “serious cases of lawyer misconduct. The twenty-member board appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia is composed of sixteen attorneys and four lay members. The board issues written (sic.) opinions following its hearings.”

Subsequently, based on the evidence of government political policy to deprive fathers of their parental rights,[18] and of a business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, in violation of Va Code § 18.2‑499, to damage Mr. Rodriguez’s pro hac vice practice for his litigating against government policy, two suits were filed: Isidoro Rodriguez and Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. Editor In Chief, Legal Times, Individually and In his Corporate Capacity, et al., No. 08-411, 129 S.Ct. 639 (2008), and, Rodriguez, and Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, et al., U.S. S. Ct Docket No. 05-1059, filed February 20, 2006). However, in violation of New Hampshire v Piper, supra, the district court denied access to an impartial court by denying Mr. Rodriguez’s motion to appear pro hac vice to represent his son, as well as denied to represent Mr. Rodriguez’s son, his law partner who was a member of the D.C. bar.[19]

In response to the evidence of being deprived of their fundamental father/son right as U.S. citizens, Mr. Rodriguez filed a petition with the U.S. Congress for an investigation of the record of collusion of the Office of the United States Department of Justice with the Judicial Branch (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).

In retaliation for Mr. Rodriguez’s litigation and petition to Congress, Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder in 2003 compounded the business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, in violation of Va Code § 18.2‑499, by colluding with Washington D.C. Lobbyists Mr. Jack Harbeston et al., to simultaneously file two surreal complaints with the VSBDB against Mr. Rodriguez for his litigating to enforce his statutory rights:[20] first, under VA Code § 54.1-3932,[21] to protect his property right in a Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on a client’s claim to sunken treasure trove aboard the 1707 Galleon San Jose, sunk off the coast of the Republic of Colombia (NPR report’s on Pres. of the Republic of Colombia confirming Dec. 2, 2015, of finding treasure trove valued at $18 Billion USD); and, second, under a joint custody agreement, VA Code, and the Hague Convention, to enforce his rights as a father to protect his son from being forced from Virginia to a “zone of war” in the Republic of Colombia.

Based upon the illegal court rules the VSBDB issued a void ab initio order on November 27, 2006, (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf), surreally assumes away various motions under Art VI of the VA Const. and VA Code § 54.1‑3935, challenging the VSBDB authority and jurisdiction to function as a court, to disbar Mr. Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Virginia in violation of Art. VI of the VA Const., the VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine affirmed the VSBDB void order disbarring Mr. Rodriguez.

From 2006 to 2014 the record evidence repeated violations of the VA Const., the VA Code, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, 5th, 7th and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 2(1) of the OAS Charter and Articles V, XIV, XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI of the American Declaration, by government attorneys in the Obama Administration in a business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, with the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuit, the U.S. Tax Court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Virginia Supreme Court, the Fairfax County Circuit Court, and the District of Columbia Bar Association, to deny access to an impartial court by abusing the judicially created doctrine of stare decisis to affirm the void ab initio order of the VSBDB to disbar Mr. Rodriguez from federal practice, and deprive him of this interstate/international pro hac vice law business, reputation, profession, the right to property, and the right to employment as an independent federal litigator.

In this context in May 2013, the Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., summarily dismissed Mr. Rodriquez’s complaint and demand for a jury trial of the evidence of the above ongoing business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, and malfeasance, and issued a prior restraint enjoining Rodriguez from filing future suits against government attorneys and employees, including judges, for violation of 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amend. U.S. Const. VA Const. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7, and VA Code §§ 54-1-3915 and 54-1-3935, 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‑JAB (aff’d USCA for the 4^th Cir., and cert. denied by the US Supreme Court).

The above-cited record confirms the denying to citizens of Virginia equal protection under the U.S. Const. 5^th and 14^th Amend., VA. Cont. and VA Code, and the Void Order Doctrine, by the Federal and Virginia Executive and Judicial Branch’s business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, to block accountability for covert and/or overt judicial acts to use illegal court rules, perpetrated in a conspiracy with private individual and government official acting outside the scope of employment during the Obama Administration under the direction of Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder, in the offices of the U.S. Attorney General Tax Division, U.S. Attorneys in the E.D. of Virginia, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, the U.S. Attorney for W.D. of Washington, the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Virginia Office of Employment Services.[22]

III. This Situation Merits the Granting of Precautionary Measures

The Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission allow for precautionary measures in “serious and urgent situations presenting a risk of irreparable harm to persons….”[23]

i. Depriving citizens of Virginia of the independent attorneys by Willful Violation of the Constitutional Limitations and Prohibitions of Separation of Power on the Supreme Court of Virginia By Promulgating Illegal Court Rules.

As the key drafter of both the Virginia and United States Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the violation of the limitation and prohibitions of any constitution defining the separation of power would create a “despotic government.”Notes on the State of Virginia 196 (1787). Also, James Madison as a drafter and supporter of the United States Constitution, explained that, “[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).

Another Founding Father, Patrick Henry, made statement often on the need for constitutional checks specifically on the Judicial Branch, writing that,

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, because at that time the clear lessons from history, which recent times confirm 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.

Therefore, to protect citizens the VA Const., and U.S. Const., confirmed that all government power was derived from the consent of the govern–We the People, and are limited. Based on these Founding Fathers writings and thoughts, the General Assembly rejected creating any centralized attorney disciplinary system under the direct control of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

In summary, VA Const. VI §§ 1, and 7 diffused the power of the Judicial Branch in Virginia to limit the risk of creating dangerous nodes of power within it. Consistent with the VA Const., the General Assembly mandated that separation of power within the Judicial Branch 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, page 13. To this end, VA Const. VI § 5, and VA Code § 54-1-3915 prohibit the Supreme Court of Virginia from the promulgation of court rules which are in conflict with both substantive rights and statutory rights because courts cannot enact legislation.

As the United States, first Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “[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. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 404 (1816) (Emphasis added).[24] Separation of power between and among entities in government fractures power in innumerable ways so to assure independent review and accountability for any violation of either the VA Const. or VA Code.[25] To enforce this control on the Judicial Branch both the U.S. Const. and VA Const., confirm that there exists no immunity from the absolute right of citizens to access to an impartial court and civil jury trial for malfeasance.[26] See Ames E. Pfander, Federal Courts, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme Court’s Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1433 (2000).

ii. Urgent irreparable harm to the rights of citizens of Virginia by the use of illegal court rules to circumvent and violate the General Assembly’s Decentralize Attorney Disciplinary System established under VA Code §1-3935.

In response to the holding of the Supreme Court of Virginia, that the power to either suspend or revoke an attorney’s license in all of Virginia, 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),[27] the General Assembly enacted the Acts of Assembly 1932. p. 139, to establish a horizontal decentralize attorney disciplinary system. In furtherance of this objective, the General Assembly gave only to each county court of appeals the jurisdiction to discipline attorneys and gave said orders statewide effect to the disciplining of an attorney before that particular court.[28] The General Assembly specifically did not provide any power to the Supreme Court of Virginia to discipline an attorney by mandating that any Supreme Court of Virginia disciplinary action was to be referred to a three-judge panel selected from the City of Richmond, VA Code §54.1-3935((B).

Consistent with these restrictions prior to 2000, the Supreme Court of Virginia did promulgate rules establishing an integrated Virginia State Bar (VSB), with only limited powers of investigating complaints against attorneys, to be exercised by a Council and Investigating Committee in each county. The function of the VSB Investigating Committee was comparable to that of a grand jury, as a fact-finding board. It had no power to suspend, reprimand, or disbar an attorney. Only after the issuance of a rule against an attorney, filed with the county clerk’s office of the county court having jurisdiction, was,

The constitutionality of this horizontal decentralized attorney disciplinary system was upheld in Campbell v. Third District Committee of Virginia State Bar, 179 Va. 244, 18 S.B.2d 883 (1942). There, the Court held that the General Assembly merely intended to create the tribunal with general jurisdiction to hear and determine disbarment proceedings and it did not intend to delegate to the tribunal any legislative powers.

Later consistent with the above, VA. Code § 54.1‑3935, was enacted by the General Assembly, which again specifically denied the Supreme Court of Virginia the power to discipline an attorney directly.[29] Also, the General Assembly again limited the delegated authority to the Supreme Court of Virginia under VA. Code § 54.1‑3909, by prohibiting under VA. Code § 54.1‑3915, the Court from prescribing, adopting, promulgating, and amending rules and regulations of unprofessional conduct, that would be inconsistent with rights under either VA Const. and/or VA Code.

Thus, the General Assembly enacted VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (A), to affirm this horizontal decentralized attorney disciplinary system, use of the jurisdiction of each county’s Court of Appeals, and circuit courts to discipline an attorney. Also, VA Code §54.1-3935(B), again reaffirmed 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.

iii. Malfeasance of the Supreme Court of Virginia by Establishing a Vertical Centralized Attorney Disciplinary System by Illegal Court Rules

To repeat, in flagrant disregard of the General Assembly’s statutory mandated horizontal decentralized attorney disciplinary system established under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (A) and (B), and in violation of the limitation and prohibitions under VA Const. Article VI, § 1, 5, and 7, and VA Code § 54.1‑3915, the Supreme Court of Virginia promulgated illegal Court Rule Part 6, IV, &13, to establish a centralized attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control.

The Supreme Court of Virginia created the VSBDB as “kangaroo court” and appointing its members as “judges,” with jurisdiction to discipline attorneys. In short, by creating the VSBDB by unlawful court rules usurping the exclusive constitutional power of the General Assembly, the Supreme Court of Virginia willfully obfuscated the rules of law to assume away the exclusive jurisdiction of each county Court of Appeals and circuit court to discipline attorneys, and the denial of power to the Supreme Court of Virginia by it creating the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court.”

iv. Malfeasance of the United States Supreme Court, United States Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits, United States District Ct. for the E.D. of Virginia, the United States Tax Court, by Violating the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by use of stare decisis to affirm the VSBDB void ab initio order to disbar Mr. Rodriguez from federal practice and damage his pro hac vice business.

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), established the benchmark as to the challenge of any void ab initio order in Federal or State Courts. There 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).

The courts of Virginia have no authority to disbar an attorney unless the power has been “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). It is black letter law that the Virginia Supreme Court, “cannot act beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void [ab initio], and this even prior to reversal.” Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353 (1920).[30]

“A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. 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. This is because logically and legally a judgment may not be issued which in violation of the limitation and prohibitions of constitutional protections and lack of jurisdiction, thus a void ab initio order cannot be affirmed by the use of either stare decisis or res judicata.

Subsequently, 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), 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.

Consequently, a void ab initio order or judgment is invalid at the moment of issuance, it is to be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. Any void ab initio order may be attacked in any court at any time, “directly or collaterally.” Any 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 and 45. As explained by the Supreme Court of Virginia, “[a] void judgment is one that has been . . . entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987) (Emphasis added).

Finally, it is a fundamental doctrine of law under the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Charter of the Organization of American States, is that citizens of Virginia, and Mr. Rodriguez, who is affected by a personal judgment of the VSBDB’s void ab initio order (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf), must have access to an impartial court, and an opportunity to be heard, on the evidence of the violation of the business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, and malfeasance by a civil jury trial. 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 a court of law with jurisdiction 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.

Thus. citizens of Virginia, and Mr. Rodriguez have a clear right to challenge disbarments based upon illegal court rules and the use of stare decisis and res judicata by the United States Supreme Court, United States Courts of Appeals (“USCA”) for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits, United States District Ct. for the E.D. of Virginia, the United States Tax Court, and Supreme Court of Virginia, to give effect to the VSBDB void ab initio order.

v. Ongoing Business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, to Systematically Deny Access to an Impartial Federal Court and Jury Trial of the Violations of the VA Const. and VA Code.

It is a fundamental doctrine of due process and the common law that a party to be affected by any 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.

However, the evidence confirms that the VSBDB issued, and the Federal Courts affirmed, a void ab initio disbarment order against an attorney for litigating to enforce his Virginia statutory rights to property and rights as a father. The evidence confirms that the Supreme Court of Virginia, and Federal judges, “[resisted] the execution of the laws under color of authority,”[31] to conceal and obfuscate the promulgation of illegal court rules by using stare decisis to affirm and use the VSBDB’s void ab initio order to damage Mr. Rodriguez pro hac vice business. Finally, the evidence confirms a conspiracy to conceal these illegal acts by systematically denying access to an impartial federal court and trial by a jury of the evidence of malfeasance and the business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499,

But, under Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, supra., the common law, under 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. VA Const., VA Code, assure the right of access to an evidentiary hearing before an impartial on the issue of the scope of employment because as pointed out by Thomas Jefferson, the jury trial is the most important safeguards against arbitrary and oppressive governmental policies. It is, for this reason, precautionary measures must be issued because of the Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., in, 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‑JAB, denied all motions demanding a jury trial on the above evidence, summarily dismissing the complaint, and issued a prior restraint enjoining Mr. Rodriguez from filing future suits against government attorneys, employees, and judges for their violation of 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amend. U.S. Const. VA Const. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7, and VA Code §§ 54-1-3915 and 54-1-3935, all in violation of the controlling precedent of Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA 515 U.S. 417 (1995).[32]

B. Seriousness of the Violation of the Right to Access to an Impartial Court

A “serious … situation” “refers to a grave impact that an action or omission can have on a protected right.”[33] The evidence establishes a pattern and practice to deprive citizens of Virginia access to an impartial court and independent pro hac vice litigators pursuant to New Hampshire v Piper, supra. Orders that exceed the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed. 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed. 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed. 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 S.Ct. 343, 61 L ed. 608.

As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), impartial review of the actions of government employees acting outside the scope of employment and jurisdiction is a mainstay of the United States system of justice, because “no man is above the law.”

This is because, “[i]f a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn’t any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.” (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.). Here the VSBDB is a “kangaroo court” was created illegally by court rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia in violation of Article VI of the VA Const. Thus, the VSBDB disbarment order is a void judgment without legal effect. Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)) “a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction.” Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972). Thus, the affirmance of the VSBDB void ab initio order, based on stare decisis does not create any binding decision. Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed. 370.

Finally, the limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to the judicial branch, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228. Therefore, the validity of the VSBDB void ab initio disbarment order, as well as the above Federal Courts, are defective by their failure to give the constitutionally required due process requirement of having an opportunity to be heard by an impartial court with subject matter jurisdiction. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also, Restatements, Judgments 4(b).

However, because of the business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, to deny access to an impartial court, the above rules of law have be violated and the IACHR must request precautionary measures from the United States, so to assure review of the orders issued to affirm and use the VSBDB void ab initio order that have deprived citizens of Virginia of their fundamental right to an impartial court and civil jury trial to obtain accountability for wrongful acts in violation of the U.S. Const., VA Const., and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. 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‑JAB.

C. Urgency

The Commission may grant precautionary measures in an “urgent situation,” which “refers to risk or threat that is imminent and can materialize, thus requiring immediate preventive or protective action.”[34]

The urgency of the situation is clear because all of the illegal orders affirming and using the VSBDB void ab initio order are forever void,[35] Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and are not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. This is because “[a] void judgment does not create any binding obligation.” Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L Ed. 370 (1940); Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861.

Here the VSBDB void ab initio disbarment order, has been affirmed and used by the United States Supreme Court, United States Courts of Appeals (“USCA”) for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits, United States District Ct. for the E.D. of Virginia, the United States Tax Court, and Supreme Court of Virginia, without authority or jurisdiction. Thus, precautionary measures must be issued to protect the rights of the citizens of Virginia and Mr. Rodriguez, to be heard by any impartial court and jury trial on the issue of liability and damages. Thus, the urgency of the situation is clear.

D. Irreparable harm

For the purpose of granting precautionary measures, “irreparable harm” refers to “injury to rights which, due to their nature, would not be susceptible to reparation, restoration or adequate compensation.”[36]

This evidence confirms that the Federal and Virginia courts and executive branch during the Obama Administration willfully abused the judicially created doctrine of stare decisis to summarily dismiss complaints to deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury, thereby depriving a citizen of Virginia the ability to challenge the unlawful Supreme Court of Virginia court unlawful rules.

The record confirms a business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, and malfeasance to violate the exclusive constitutional power of the General Assembly of Virginia (“VA Assembly”), to create courts, appoint judges, and establish pursuant to VA Code §§ 54.1‑3935, and 54.1‑3909, a “horizontal” decentralized attorney disciplinary system in each county of Virginia, and specifically prohibiting this system be under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Also, the General Assembly of Virginia guaranteed in enacting VA Code § 54.1‑3915, that pursuant to Art. § 5 VA Const., that attorney could not be disciplined for litigating to enforce their statutory rights.

Precautionary measures must be issued to avoid irreparable harm by the ongoing use of illegal court rules to create a centralized attorney disciplinary system under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia. There is no other way that any citizen of Virginia can be protected from suffering irreparable harm by the systematic denying of access to an impartial court and trial by jury to stop the use of illegal court rules. As James Madison writing, that “[n]o 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).

III. Precautionary Measures Requested

In light of the preceding information, it is respectfully requested that this Commission call on the United States protect the rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by taking the following action immediately:

a. Urgently issue the necessary and appropriate precautionary measures by the United States to prevent further irreparable harm to citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia by the use of illegal court rules violating the limitations and prohibitions of Art. IV Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, VA Code, void ab initio order doctrine, and the U.S. Constitution, by ordering the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia to support the filing of any action seeking damages for any business conspiracy in violation of Va Code § 18.2 499, to deprive a Virginia attorney of his business, profession, reputation, fundamental right to employment as a pro hac vice federal litigator, for litigating to enforce his rights under VA Const. and VA Code.

b. Grant expedited evaluation in accordance with Article 29 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure;

c. In accordance with Article 30(7) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, given the serious and urgent nature of the case of violations of fundamental rights of the citizens of Virginia, consider the admissibility and merits of the petition simultaneously; and,

d. Grant the Request for Precautionary Measure, admit the petition, and, conduct a full hearing, on the alleged violation of the fundamental rights of citizens of Virginia enshrined in Articles I, III, V, VI, XI, XVIII, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

Respectfully submitted,

Isidoro Rodriguez

[1] 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).

[2] 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)

[3] 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 . . ..

[4] VA. Code § 54.1‑3909. The Supreme Court may promulgate rules and regulations: . . . Prescribing procedures for disciplining, suspending, and attorneys.

[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] 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. …

[7] 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).

[8] Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states in relevant part, “No person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law; . . ..”

[9] Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, grantees the right to a trial by jury for alleged malfeasance by any government employee, including judges.

[10] The Due Process Clause of Section 1 of the 14^th 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.”

[11] Va Code § 18.2‑499. Combination to injure others in their reputation, trade, business or profession: right of employees: (a) Any two or more persons who shall combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of wilfully and maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever, . . ., shall be jointly and severally guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Such punishment shall be in addition to any civil relief recoverable under § 18.2‑500.

[12] “Pro hac vice …The phrase usu. refers to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a particular jurisdiction but who is admitted there temporarily for the purpose of conducting a particular case.” 8^th Ed Black’s Law Dictionary.

[13] In undisputable violation of Art. VI of the VA Const., the Rules of The Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6, § IV, 13-6, established the VSBDB to hear, “serious cases of lawyer misconduct. The twenty-member board appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia is composed of sixteen attorneys and four lay members. The board issues written opinions following its hearings.”

[14] Tarkington, Margaret. ―A Free Speech Right to Impugn Judicial Integrity in Court Proceedings‖, 51 B.C. L. Rev. 363 at 391 (2010). (internal footnote omitted).

[15] “Some bankruptcy courts construe costs assessed against an attorney through disciplinary proceedings as a nondischargeable ‘fine, penalty or forfeiture’, thereby fostering a class of lawyers who cannot return to the bar due to indigency.” POPULAR, Inc. (Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored), “Protecting Judicial Whistleblowers in The War on Poverty: A Proposed International Initiative Focusing on The United States,” p 5 (November 2008). Available at http://www.popular4people.org/files/POPULAR_WhitePaper_finalized.pdf See also, In re Logal, 381 BR 706 (Bankr. Court, ND Indiana 2007).

[16] Although the word “Federalism” never appears in the U.S. Constitution, it is one of its most important and innovative concepts established upon the doctrine of E Pluribus Unum: “out of many states, one nation.” “Federalism” is the unique to the political system of the United States sharing of power between the United States national and state governments constitutions. This is based on the 13 original states, which existed first with their respective state constitutions, who in turn were empowered by “We the People” to establish the national government by adopting the U.S. Constitution. Under “Federalism” both state and national constitutions share power pursuant to hardwired grids of separated power of “checks and balances” creating dynamic and consistent tensions on the proper role of the national government versus the states.

[17] Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (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) (https://www.oyez.org/advocates/isidoro_rodriguez).

[18] Pursuant to a joint custody agreement, VA Code, and The Hague Convention, Mr. Rodriguez had filed suits based on the request by his then 13 -year old U.S. citizen Son, to stay in Virginia and not be forced to a “zone of war” in the Republic of Colombia during a dangerous period for citizens of the United States in 2001-2002. See generally Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. Amalin Hazbun Escaf, Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 3247-03-4; and, Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2002).

[19] During these actions, it was confirmed that Chief Justice Rehnquist as Circuit Justice for the USCA 4^th Cir., and District of Colombia, permitted these district court to promulgate and use of court rules to restrict and deny the right of an attorney to appear via pro hac vice by requiring a client to retain and pay for a local counsel to appear at all hearings and sign pleadings-thereby again placing the attorney under the control of the judge.

[20] Pursuant to Art. VI, § 5 of the VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1 3915, there is a prohibition on the use of court disciplinary rules to deprive an attorney of his statutory rights, i.e. Mr. Rodriguez’s rights as a father and to property interest in his choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on the treasure trove claimed by SSA.

[21] VA Code 54.1‑3932. Lien for fees. A. Any person having or claiming a right of action sounding . . . liquidated or unliquidated damages on contract, may contract with any attorney to prosecute the same, and the attorney shall have a lien upon the cause of action as security for is fees for any services rendered in relation to the cause of action or claim. When any such contract is made, and written notice of the claim of such lien is given to the opposite party, his attorney or agent, any settlement or adjustment of the cause of action shall be void against the lien so created, except as proof of liability on such cause of action.

[22]The evidence found in the 1981 FBI Report on Mr. Rodriguez’s White House Senior Executive Appointment in the Reagan Administration as Director of Office of Civil Rights, USDA, confirms a pattern and practice since 1978 of government attorneys, employees, and judges in the District of Colombia conspiring to punish Mr. Rodriguez for being an independent attorney serving citizens. See Isidoro Rodriuez v. D.C. Department of Employment Services, 452 A.2d (D.D. 1982) (The court’s ignored the City Administrator Elijah Rodger acting without authority and falsifying evidence to punish Mr. Rodriguez, Acting Legal Counsel/Consultant to the Mayor of the D.C. Gov’t, for refusing to permit the corruption. Later Mr. Rogers was found guilty of violation of the Social Security Act and served prison time.

[23] IACHR, Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (effective Aug. 1, 2013), art. 25.1, http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/Basics/rulesiachr.asp (last accessed Nov. 29, 2016).

[24] VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, confirm that there is no judicial immunity for acts outside of authority or jurisdiction by making it a Class 2 felony for, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority.”

[25] Fed. 47 p 109, states that, “[the VA Const.], declares, . . . ‘that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise powers properly belonging to the other. . ..”

[26] 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)

[27] 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, “[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.” (Emphases added).

[28] See 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; see also David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954) http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmrval/vol2/iss1/2

[29]Va. Code § 54.1‑3935. Procedure for revocation of license. . ..

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.

[30] As Virginia Circuit Judge the Hon. D. Arthur Kelsey, wrote, “The Constitution does not authorize the judiciary to write laws that the legislature failed to enact, or to repeal those that violate no recognizable constitutional principle, or to amend laws that are reasonably adequate but nonetheless can be improved upon. As Thomas Jefferson put it, a judiciary that pushes beyond these limits would place us all under the “despotism of an oligarchy” —one flatly at odds with the democratic principles of our republic.” VSB Journal, Hon. D. Arthur Kelsey, Law & Politics: The Imperative of Judicial Self‑Restraint, (2004). at p.5.

[31] Misprision of treason is defined pursuant to VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482.

[32] In Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, supra., petition Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez argued and won before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court reversed/ordered an evidentiary hearing on the issue of acts outside the scope of employment before a jury, despite DOJ argument under the stewardship of Eric Holder and the U.S. Ct of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit decision to deny accountability. The Court rejected their surreal argument that a DEA agent would be absolutely immune from suit even when acting outside the of his scope of employment by negligently causing a car accident. It is important to note that for the first time a court of appeals had to retain and be represented by an outside counsel because the U.S. Solicitor General agreed with Mr. Rodriquez’s petition, see Docket Watch by Tony Mauro, “Testing the Limits of Sovereign Immunity,” Legal Times, Week of March 30, 2995.

[33] Id., art. 25.2a.

[34] IACHR, Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (effective Aug. 1, 2013), art. 25.2b, http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/Basics/rulesiachr.asp (last accessed Nov. 29, 2016).

[35] “A judgment which is void . . . is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists.” People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448]. “If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn’t any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.” (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.)

[36] Id., art. 25.2c.

Request for Immediate Action on Petition (IACHR)(P-926-16), and Request for Precautionary Measures (MC-367-16)

21 Saturday Jan 2017

≈ Leave a comment

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 18889 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Request for Immediate Action on Petition (IACHR)(P-926-16), and Request for Precautionary Measures (MC-367-16)

Greetings:

I filed the above pleadings more than eight months ago, (see http://isidororodriguez.com), and subsequently filed various supplemental pleadings in support for the Petition and Request for Precautionary Measures. Given that the above pleadings have only been “Under Study,” I now write to seek a meeting to discuss my need for the immediate need for protection of my property rights and right to employment as a U.S. federal civil litigator, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Organization of American States Charter and Articles V, XIV, XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI of the American Declaration.

I advise you and attach my Statement to the Fairfax Delegation to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia given on January 7, 2017, and attach a supplemental Memorandum of Law confirming that there is no immunity form accountability for malfeasance by U.S. and Virginia government attorneys and employees, including judges.

In summary, the evidence is that in violation of the 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Art. VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Article 2(1) of the OAS Charter and Articles V, XIV, XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI of the American Declaration, Federal and Virginia Code, government attorneys in the Obama Administration under the Stewardship of Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Gov’t/Private Attorney Eric Holder, have acted outside the scope of their employment and jurisdiction to establish a policy and practice to assume away accountability for malfeasance, but rather provide absolute immunity for the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by jury to secure accountability for malfeasance.

On the issue of the self-proclaimed doctrine of “judicial immunity,” and immunity of federal government employees generally, not only is it inconsistent with the holding I won when I argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (right to evidentiary hearing before a jury), the key point missed is that under our Constitution system and “federalism” only State Court are courts of general jurisdiction– Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. This distinction is the key to confusion, since federal courts and government views itself as having no limits on its power. Thus, the holding of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, (1978), which provides absolute judicial immunity for state court judge only is based upon the general jurisdiction of a State court judge (who are elect for terms of office). It has not incorrectly been applied to Federal court (who are appointed for life). This has been unlawfully done by both judges and attorneys, making all judges above the law and not accountable for violation of the rule of law and usurping of legislative power by the issuance of court rules. This is wrong and I have been litigating and petitioning the legislative branch to investigate and correct this.

My litigation and petitions to the U.S. Congress and the General Assembly of Virginia have been filed pursuant to the holding under Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 140 (1970), Chief Justice Berger: “If [judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” Justice Black and Douglas in their dissenting opinion, Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 141-142, agreed with Chief Justice Berger on the point above: “While judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted, and punished for crimes . . .”

In Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988), the Court held:
“This Court has never undertaken to articulate a precise and general definition of the class of acts entitled to immunity. The decided cases, however, suggest an intelligible distinction between judicial acts and the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned by law to perform. Thus, for example, the informal and ex parte nature of a proceeding has not been thought to imply that an act otherwise within a judge’s lawful jurisdiction was deprived of its judicial character. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 363, n. 12 (1978). Similarly, acting to disbar an attorney as a sanction for contempt of court, by invoking a power “possessed by all courts which have authority to admit attorneys to practice,” does not become less judicial by virtue of an allegation of malice or corruption of motive. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 354. [484 U.S. 219, 228]. As the Bradley Court noted: “Against the consequences of [judges’] erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties’ numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort.” Ibid.”

Administrative decisions, even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not similarly been regarded as judicial acts. In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880), for example, this Court declined to extend immunity to a county judge who had been charged in a criminal indictment with discriminating on the basis of race in selecting trial jurors for the county’s courts. The Court reasoned:

“Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. . .. That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court-criers, tipstave, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?” Id., at 348. Although this case involved a criminal charge against a judge, the reach of the Court’s analysis was not in any obvious way confined by that circumstance.”

Likewise, judicial immunity has not been extended to judges acting to promulgate a code of conduct for attorneys. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (1980). In explaining why legislative, rather than judicial, immunity furnished the appropriate standard, we said: “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 rulemaking.” Id., at 731. Similarly, in the same case, we 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). Once again, it was the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, that informed our immunity analysis.

The evidence confirms that there has been a usurping of their legislative authority of the General Assembly of Virginia (see my presentation in 2010 to NOVA member of General Assembly, https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5). This has been allowed by the U.S. Federal Court denying me a trial by jury to secure accountability for malfeasance, a summary dismissal of my suit, and the issuance of a prior restraint enjoining any future suit seeking accountability of government employees in Obama’s Administration for their retaliatory business conspiracy to damage my business as an independent federal litigator, profession, reputation, property rights, and right to employment, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Eric Holder, and Jane/John Does Members of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. VA (Richmond Division) No. 12 cv 663-JAB (2010). The court orders themselves confirms a systematic denial to me of access to an impartial court and trial by jury, in total disregard of the holding I won in Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). In summary, this litigation is based on the evidence:

first, of the simultaneous filing in 2003 of two Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (VSBDB) complaints against me in retaliation for my litigating to enforce my Virginia statutory rights:(1) by Eric Holder, seeking to punish me for litigating Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA supra., and litigating for violation of my rights as a father under VA Code, the Hague Convention, and Joint Custody Agreement (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml, and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Editor In Chief, Legal Times, Individually and In his Corporate Capacity, et al., No. 08-411, 129 S.Ct. 639 (2008); and, (2) by my client, with Eric Holder, and other Washington D.C. Oligarchy of Lawyer, Lobbyist, and Law Firms, undertaking a business conspiracy to deprive me of my property rights in my choate statutory Virginia Attorney’s Lien on my client’s claim to a 50% share to $18 Billion USD of sunken treasure trove off the coast of the Republic of Colombia; and,

second, of the VSBDB sitting as a “Kangaroo Court” in violation of Art. VI of the Virginia Constitutions and Codes, to issue in 2006 a Void Ab Initio Order disbarring me for litigating to enforce my statutory rights as a father and my choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf), and the denying to me access to an impartial court and jury trial of the evidence of the business conspiracy and malfeasance to use stare decisis to affirm the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order.

Please advise when we can meet to discuss my pleadings,

Respectfully submitted,

Isidoro Rodriguez

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF IMMEDIATE ACTION ON THE PETITION AND REQUESTS FOR PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES FILED WITH THE INTERAMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, THE 5TH, 7TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND VA CODE.

21 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, DEnial of right to civil trial by jury, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On May 15, 2016, Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) a Petition (P-926-16) and Requests for Precautionary Measures (MC-367-16) (see http://isidororodriguez.com), for protection from an ongoing business conspiracy and acts of malfeasance by named and unnamed government attorneys and employees, including judges of the United States and Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Petition and Requests for Precautionary Measures were filed with evidence confirming that since 2003 government attorneys and employees, including judges of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia, have willfully obfuscated and concealed their ongoing business conspiracy and acts of malfeasance to deprive Rodriguez of his business, reputation, property, and right to employment as an independent federal civil litigator, by unlawful use of the doctrines of stare decisis and res judicata to obstruct justice and conceal the unlawful promulgation and use of the Supreme Court of Virginia Court Rules. Thus, Rodriguez has been and is still systematically denied of his fundamental right of access to an impartial court to enjoin the ongoing violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (“5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amend. U.S. Const.”), Article VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”), the Internal Revenue Code, and Virginia Code, as well as the right to a trial by jury for monetary damages against each named defendant, all in violation of Article 2(1) of the OAS Charter and Articles V, XIV, XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI of the American Declaration.

As explained in Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), a case Rodriguez argued and won before the United States Supreme Court, the impartial review is a mainstay of our system of government so to be able to hold government employees accountable for an unlawful act. As Madison wrote,

“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).

On the issue of the self-proclaimed doctrine of “judicial immunity,” and immunity of federal government employees generally, not only is it inconsistent with the holding I won when I argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (right to evidentiary hearing before a jury), the key point missed is that under our Constitution system and “federalism” only State Court are courts of general jurisdiction– Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. This distinction is the key to confusion, since federal courts and government views itself as having no limits on its power. Thus, the holding of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, (1978), which provides absolute judicial immunity for state court judge only is based upon the general jurisdiction of a State court judge (who are elect for terms of office). It has not incorrectly been applied to Federal court (who are appointed for life). This has been unlawfully done by both judges and attorneys, making all judges above the law and not accountable for violation of the rule of law and usurping of legislative power by the issuance of court rules.

Under Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 140 (1970), Chief Justice Berger: “If [judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” Justice Black and Douglas in their dissenting opinion, Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 141-142, agreed with Chief Justice Berger on the point above: “While judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted, and punished for crimes . . .”

In Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988), the Court held:

“This Court has never undertaken to articulate a precise and general definition of the class of acts entitled to immunity. The decided cases, however, suggest an intelligible distinction between judicial acts and the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned by law to perform. Thus, for example, the informal and ex parte nature of a proceeding has not been thought to imply that an act otherwise within a judge’s lawful jurisdiction was deprived of its judicial character. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 363, n. 12 (1978). Similarly, acting to disbar an attorney as a sanction for contempt of court, by invoking a power “possessed by all courts which have authority to admit attorneys to practice,” does not become less judicial by virtue of an allegation of malice or corruption of motive. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 354. [484 U.S. 219, 228]. As the Bradley Court noted: “Against the consequences of [judges’] erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties’ numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort.” Ibid.

“Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. . .. That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court-criers, tipstave, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?” Id., at 348. Although this case involved a criminal charge against a judge, the reach of the Court’s analysis was not in any obvious way confined by that circumstance.”

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

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 Fourteenth 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.”

VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

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.

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 as the same shall, from time to time, be established by the General Assembly.

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 . . ..

VIRGINIA CODE SECTIONS INVOLVED

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 54.1‑3932. Lien for fees. A. Any person having or claiming a right of action sounding . . . liquidated or unliquidated damages on contract, may contract with any attorney to prosecute the same, and the attorney shall have a lien upon the cause of action as security for is fees for any services rendered in relation to the cause of action or claim. When any such contract is made, and written notice of the claim of such lien is given to the opposite party, his attorney or agent, any settlement or adjustment of the cause of action shall be void against the lien so created, except as proof of liability on such cause of action.

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. …

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

Part 6, § IV, 13-6, established the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board to hear the most, “serious cases of lawyer misconduct. The twenty-member board appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia is composed of sixteen attorneys and four lay members. The board issues written opinions following its hearings.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The General Assembly enacted VA Code § 54.1‑3935, establishing a decentralized attorney disciplinary system under the control of each county court of appeals, not under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

The Supreme Court of Virginia promulgated Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia Part 6, § IV, 13-6, outside of its jurisdiciotn by establishing a centralized attorney disciplinary system under its control by the Court creating the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court,” and the Court appointing the twenty members of the VSBDB as “judges” (See https://www.vsb.org/site/about/disciplinary and http://www.vsb.org/pro-guidelines/index.php/bar-govt/).

In 2003, in retaliation for Rodriguez litigating to enforce his Virginia statutory rights, Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder entered into a business conspiracy with a client of Rodriguez, to simultaneously file two complaints with the VSBDB: first, pursuant to VA Code § 54.1-3932, to protect his property right in a Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on a client’s claim to sunken treasure trove off the coast of the Republic of Colombia aboard the 1707 Galleon San Jose (NPR report’s on Pres. of the Republic of Colombia confirming Dec. 2, 2015, of finding treasure trove valued at $18 Billion USD); and, second, pursuant to Treaty, VA Code, and joint custody agreement, to enforce his rights as a father to protect in 2001 his 13 year-old son from being forced against his son’s express desire, from Virginia to a “zone of war” in the Republic of Colombia (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).

On November 27, 2006, after denying various motions challenging the VSBDB authority and jurisdiction as a court, the VSBDB issued a void ab initio order, surreally disbarring and punished Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf).

In 2007, in violation of Rodriguez’s statutory rights, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and the doctrine of stare decises, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirm VSBDB void ab initio order disbarring Isidoro Rodriguez as an independent Virginia trial attorney,

Between 2008 and 2014, the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, District of Columbia, and Federal Circuits, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States Tax Court, violated Rodriguez’s statutory rights, the 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amend. U.S. Const. and the Art. VI of VA Const., Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and the doctrine of stare decises, by their use of the VSBDB void order to disbar him and deprive Rodriguez’s interstate/international law business, reputation, profession, the right to property, and the right to employment as an independent federal litigator.

● In May 2013, the Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., denied the demand for a jury trial on the evidence of an ongoing business conspiracy and malfeasance, to summarily dismissed and issued a prior restraint enjoining Rodriguez from filing future suits against government attorneys and employees, including judges, for violation of 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amend. U.S. Const. VA Const. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7, and VA Code §§ 54-1-3915 and 54-1-3935, 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‑JAB.

VA General Assembly Established Decentralize Attorney Disciplinary System

Pursuant to this legislation, the Supreme Court of Virginia did promulgate rules establishing an integrated Virginia State Bar (VSB), with limited powers of investigating complaints against attorneys, to be exercised by a Council and Investigating Committee in each county. The function of the VSB Investigating Committee was comparable to that of a grand jury, as a fact-finding board. It had no power to suspend, reprimand, or disbar an attorney. Only after the issuance of a rule against an attorney, filed with the county clerk’s office of the county court having jurisdiction, was,

The constitutionality of this decentralized attorney disciplinary system was upheld in Campbell v. Third District Committee of Virginia State Bar, 179 Va. 244, 18 S.B.2d 883 (1942). There, the Court held that evident from the provisions of the statute the General Assembly merely intended to create a new tribunal with general jurisdiction to hear and determine disbarment proceedings and did not intend to delegate to the tribunal any legislative powers. Appeal from the judgment of the three-judge court was a matter of right to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Also, the attorney who had been disbarred had the right to apply to the Governor for reinstatement, if at the time of application for such relief, “there is no other adequate remedy for obtaining it at law.” See VA Code of 1950, 12-45.

Subsequently, VA. Code § 54.1‑3935, was enacted by the General Assembly, which again specifically denied the Supreme Court of Virginia the power to discipline an attorney directly.[2] Also, the General Assembly limited the delegated authority to the Supreme Court of Virginia under VA. Code § 54.1‑3909, by prohibiting under VA. Code § 54.1‑3915, the Court from prescribing, adopting, promulgating, and amending rules and regulations of unprofessional conduct, that would be inconsistent with rights under either VA Const. and/or VA Code.

Thus, the General Assembly enacted VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (A), to reconfirm the decentralized attorney disciplinary system’s use of the jurisdiction of each county’s Court of Appeals, and circuit courts to discipline an attorney. Also, VA Code §54.1-3935(B), again reconfirmed 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.

Constitutional Limitations and Prohibitions on the Supreme Court of Virginia

The General Assembly rejected creating a centralized attorney disciplinary system under the direct control of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In summary, the General Assembly mandated that separation of power within the Judicial Branch 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, page 13.

As Chief Justice, John Marshall wrote more than 2000 years ago, “[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. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 404 (1816) (Emphasis added).[3] To enforce this control on the Judicial Branch both the U.S. Const. and VA Const., confirm that there exists no immunity from the absolute right of citizens to access to an impartial court and civil jury trial for malfeasance.[4] See Ames E. Pfander, Federal Courts, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme Court’s Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1433 (2000).

VA Const. VI §§ 1, and 7, diffused the power of the Judicial Branch in Virginia to limit the risk of creating dangerous nodes of power within it. To this end, VA Const. VI § 5, and VA Code § 54-1-3915 prohibit the Supreme Court of Virginia from the promulgation of court rules which are in conflict with both substantive rights and statutory rights because courts cannot enact legislation. In short, separation of power between and among entities in government fractures power in innumerable ways to assure independent review of any violation of either the VA Const. or VA Code.^{^[5]}

This was consistent with Thomas Jefferson writings that the violation of the limitation and prohibitions defining the separation of power would create a “despotic government.”Notes on the State of Virginia 196 (1787). As 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). These drafters of both the VA Const., and U.S. Const., understood that 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.

Therefore, to protect citizens the VA Const., and U.S. Const., confirmed that all government power was derived from the consent of the govern–We the People, and are limited. Consequently, it is safe to argue that these constitutional draftsmen openly advocated a deep distrust of the motive of individuals in government generally. As to the need of constitutional checks specifically on the Virginia and Federal Judicial Branch, Patrick Henry, wrote,

Malfeasance of the Supreme Court of Virginia by Establishing a Centralized Attorney Disciplinary System Under its Rules

In flagrant disregard of the General Assembly’s mandated decentralized attorney disciplinary system established under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (A) and (B), and in violation of the limitation and prohibitions under VA Const. Article VI, § 1, 5, and 7, and VA Code § 54.1‑3915, the Supreme Court of Virginia promulgated Rule Part 6, IV, &13, to establish a centralized attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control. The Supreme Court of Virginia created the VSBDB as “court” and appointing its members as “judges,” with jurisdiction to discipline attorneys. In short, by creating the VSBDB by unlawful court rules that usurped the exclusive constitutional power of the General Assembly and willfully obfuscated court rules to assume away the exclusive jurisdiction of each county Court of Appeals and circuit court to discipline attorneys, the Supreme Court of Virginia created the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” whose order are void ab initio.

Malfeasance of the Supreme Court of Virginia by Violating the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to affirm the VSBDB disbarment of Rodriguez

Pursuant to 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), 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. A void ab initio order or judgment is invalid at the moment of issuance, it is 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 may be attacked in any court at any time, “directly or collaterally.” 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 and 45. As explained by the Supreme Court of Virginia, “[a] void judgment is one that has been . . . entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987) (Emphasis added).

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), established the benchmark as to the challenge of any void ab initio order. There 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 decision, as well as others, provides Rodriguez with thclear a right to challenge the various federal court disbarments based upon their use of stare decisis and res judicata to give effect to and not enjoin the VSBDB void ab initio order. Because a void ab initio order cannot be affirmed by the federal court’s use of either stare decisis or res judicata. “A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. 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. This because logically and legally a judgment may not be issued which in violation of the limitation and prohibitions of constitutional protections.

The validity of the VSBDB void ab initio disbarment order, as well as those of the Federal Courts, are affected by their failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also, Restatements, Judgments 4(b). The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to the judicial branch, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.

Because, the Virginia Supreme Court, “cannot act beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void [ab initio], and this even prior to reversal.” Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353 (1920).[6]

Finally, it is a fundamental doctrine of law under the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Charter of the Organization of American States, is that Rodriguez, who is affected by a personal judgment of the VSBDB’s void ab initio order, Rodriguez must have his day in an impartial court, and an opportunity to be heard, on the evidence of the violation of the business conspiracy and malfeasance by a civil jury trial. 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 a 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.

No Opportunity to Be Heard

The evidence confirms that Rodriguez has yet to be heard by any impartial court and has been deprived of his right jury trial damages on his challenge to the VSBDB void ab initio order. This is most troubling, since the judgment of the VSBDB issued without authority or jurisdiction, and the use of stare decisis by the federal courts has denied him of his right to heard and is not are not a valid judicial determination of Rodriguez’s statutory rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. This is because “[a] void judgment does not create any binding obligation.” Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed. 370 (1940); Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861. An illegal order is forever void.[7]

Court Orders Exceeding Jurisdiction

The order issued in 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‑JAB, denying Rodriguez of his right to a jury trial, dismissing the action, and enjoining future suits against government attorneys and employees, including judges, for a business conspiracy and malfeasance, based on violation of the U.S. Const., VA Const., and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, exceeds the jurisdiction and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed. 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed. 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed. 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 S.Ct. 343, 61 L ed. 608.

This is because, “[i]f a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn’t any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.” (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.). Here the VSBDB is a “kangaroo court” illegally created by court rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia in violation of Article VI of the VA Const. Thus, the VSBDB disbarment order is a void judgment without legal effect. Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)) “a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction.” Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972). Thus, the affirmance of the VSBDB void ab initio order, based on stare decisis does not create any binding decision. Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed. 370.

Business Conspiracy to Systematically Deny Access to an Impartial court and Jury Trial

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.

However, the evidence confirms that the VSBDB issued a void ab initio order by being a “kangaroo court” and disbarring Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his Virginia statutory rights to property and employment. The evidence confirms that on appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia “[resisted] the execution of the laws under color of authority,”[8] to conceal and obfuscate the promulgation of illegal court rules by affirming the VSBDB’s void ab initio order. Finally, the evidence confirms a conspiracy to conceal illegal acts by systematically denying access to an impartial federal court and trial by a jury of the evidence of malfeasance and the business conspiracy to deprive Rodriguez of his business, reputation, profession, property, and right to employment.

But, under the common law right to fair trial on the issue of the scope of employment, as well as VA Const., and VA Code, the question is to be resolved by an evidentiary hearing before an impartial jury under 5^th, 7^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This is because as pointed out by Jefferson, the jury trial is the most important safeguards against arbitrary and oppressive governmental policies.

Conclusion

The memorandum of law is submitted to seek immediate action on the IACHR Petition and Requests for Precautionary Measures filed eight months ago, to bring public attention and to stop the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by jury to deny Rodriguez’s right to seek damages for the ongoing use and enforcement of the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order issued in violation of the 5^th and 14^th Amend to the U.S. Const., Art. VI of the Virginia Constitutions and VA Codes, as a “Kangaroo Court” (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf).

The evidence submitted confirm that government attorneys and employees in the Obama Administration, in collusion with the judges of the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, D.C. and Federal Circuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the United District Tax Court, willfully entered into a business conspiracy to undertake acts of malfeasance by systematically denying Rodriguez access to an impartial court so to obstruct justice by aiding and abetting the ongoing violation of Article VI of the Constitution of Virginia and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, as well as to deny Rodriguez of his right to a jury trial for the business conspiracy to damage his business, reputation, profession, right to property, and right to employment as an independent federal civil litigator.

To this end, the Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., in 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‑JAB, denied Rodriguez of his fundamental right to a trial by jury pursuant to Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), summarily dismissed this action, and issued a prior restraint to effectively enjoin future suit seeking accountability and damages for the promulgation and use of illegal court rules in violation of the U.S. Const., VA Const., the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and the Internal Revenue Code.

But, “[c]rime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy,” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 451 (1928).

Consequently, because “there is no other adequate remedy for obtaining it at law,” within the United States, to protect the fundamental rights of Rodriguez and all citizen under the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the Organization of American, IACHR must take action.

Respectfully submitted,

Isidoro Rodríguez

[1] See 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; see also David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954) http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmrval/vol2/iss1/2.

[2]The General Assembly specifically denied the Supreme Court of Virginia the power to discipline attorneys statewide, by mandating that any Supreme Court of Virginia disciplinary action was to be referred to a three-judge panel selected from the City of Richmond, VA Code §54.1-3935.

[3] VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, confirm that there is no judicial immunity for acts outside of authority or jurisdiction by making it a Class 2 felony for, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority.”

[4] 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)

^{^[5]}Fed. 47 p 109, states that, “[the VA Const.], declares, . . . ‘that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise powers properly belonging to the other. . ..”

[6]As Virginia Circuit Judge the Hon. D. Arthur Kelsey, wrote, “The Constitution does not authorize the judiciary to write laws that the legislature failed to enact, or to repeal those that violate no recognizable constitutional principle, or to amend laws that are reasonably adequate but nonetheless can be improved upon. As Thomas Jefferson put it, a judiciary that pushes beyond these limits would place us all under the “despotism of an oligarchy” —one flatly at odds with the democratic principles of our republic.” VSB Journal, Hon. D. Arthur Kelsey, Law & Politics: The Imperative of Judicial Self‑Restraint, (2004). at p.5.

[7] “A judgment which is void . . . is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists.” People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448]. “If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn’t any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.” (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.)

[8] Misprision of treason is defined pursuant to VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482.

[1]The Court 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, “[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.” (Emphases added).

Accountability for Violation of the Common Law By Acts Outside the Sphere of Legislative/Judicial Authority and Employment

~ accountability for unlawful acts, treason, malfeasance, independent advocates, Judicial Branch

Category Archives: Denial of access to impartial court

Article IV of the Constitution of Virginia Restrictions, Limitations and Prohibitions on the Jurisdiction and Judicial Authority of the Supreme Court of Virginia

DEPRIVED OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND TRIAL BY JURY OF THE EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL ACTS OF MALFEASANCE AND BUSINESS CONSPIRACY.

THE UNLAWFUL GRANT OF “IMPUNITY” AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR ACTS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT OF GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES, AND FOR VOID AB INITIO ORDERS ISSUED OUTSIDE JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL/VIRGINIA JUDIICAL BRANCH.

COVER LETTER TO Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit OHCHR- Palais Wilson United Nations Office at Geneva CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, OHCHR- Palais Wilson. United Nations Office at Geneva . CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit
OHCHR- Palais Wilson

United Nations Office at Geneva
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: (+41 22) 917 90 11
E-mail: CP@ohchr.org

Request for Immediate Action on Petition (IACHR)(P-926-16), and Request for Precautionary Measures (MC-367-16)

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, OHCHR- Palais Wilson. United Nations Office at Geneva . CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit OHCHR- Palais Wilson

United Nations Office at Geneva CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Fax: (+41 22) 917 90 11 E-mail: CP@ohchr.org

Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit
OHCHR- Palais Wilson

United Nations Office at Geneva
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: (+41 22) 917 90 11
E-mail: CP@ohchr.org