PETITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND HEARING ON THE CRIMINAL COMPLICITY TO USE ILLEGAL COURT RULES TO CREATE AN UNLAWFUL LOWER “COURT” AND TO UNLAWFULLY NAME “JUDGES” IN VIOLATION OF THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS OF ART. VI OF THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION, VA CODE, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE.
The Petition seeks to stop the issuance and use of the illegal Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia (“Court”) Part 6, § IV, that unlawfully established a centralized attorney discipline system under the Court’s control by it creating the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as an unlawful lower “court” with jurisdiction and judicial authority to discipline attorneys, and it unlawfully appointing VSBDB members as “judges.” These unlawful rules are in clear violation of the explicit limitations and prohibitions on the Court under Art. VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of Virginia (VA Const.”), and VA Code § 54-1-3915 & 54.1‑3935, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine,  and, the 5th, 7th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The question to be addressed by the members of the General Assembly in response to this Petition is,
“to what purpose are [the Court’s] powers limited, and to what purpose are those limitation in writing [on the Court], if these limitations may, at any time, be passed over and ignored by [the Court who is] intended to be restrained, controlled and limited?” in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 176 (1803) [Chief Justice Marshall writing for the majority].
But, irrefutable the evidence confirms a willful violation of the limitation and prohibition on the Court under Art. VI, §§ 1, 5, & 7 of the VA Const., VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, & 3935, by the Court unlawfully issuing and using court rules to establish a centralized attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control. The Court has obfuscated and assumed away the decentralized attorney disciplinary system established by the General Assembly under VA Code § 54.1‑3935.
Compounding the Court’s willfully defiance of the limitations and provisions under the VA Const. and VA Code, the evidence confirms the complicity of the Court the Fairfax County Court and Court of Appeals, the Virginia State Bar, the VSBDB, and the Office of Attorney General of Virginia’s violation of VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482, to “resist the execution of the laws under color of authority,” and in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2‑499/500 participation in a business conspiracy. The evidence confirms that these entities and individual have used legal sophistry and misused the judicially created doctrine of stare decisis/res judicata to surreally use the VSBDB void ab initio order to disbar and deprive the undersigned of his right to of due process and his statutory property rights, and then grant themselves “impunity” and absolute immunity from accountability said illegal acts (See Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., et al., No. 081146 (2008); Fairfax Cir Ct. No CL-2007-1796), by:
First, violating Art. VI §§ 1 and 7 of the VA Const., to not stop the VSBDB acting as a lower “court” with jurisdiction and judicial authority to discipline attorneys, not stop the Court from choosing/appointing the 21 members of the VSBDB as “judges,” and not stop the defying of the limitation on the Virginia State Bar to only the investigation of bar complaints; and,
Second, violating VA Const., VA Code, U.S. Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by arguing for the unlawful use of the VSBDB void ab initio orders to disbar the undersign from federal practice before the U. S. Supreme Court, the U. S. Court of Appeal for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, D.C. and Federal Circuits, the U. S. Dist. Court for the E.D. of Virginia, and U.S. Tax Court; and, arguing for the systematic denying to the undersign access to an impartial court and jury trial by enjoining and prior restraining the undersigns from litigating to challenge the VSBDB void ab initio orders, business conspiracy, and other unlawful acts. (See unpublished void orders of Hon. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney and 4th Cir. USCA Isidoro Rodriguez v. John/Jane Doe of the VSBDB, et al., EDVA No. 3:12-cv-00663 (2013)(https://casetext.com/case/rodriguez-v-doe-5) and (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-13-01638/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-13-01638-0.pdf).
Thus, the Petition seeks to protect the undersigns due process and statutory property rights by a finding that the VSBDB void ab initio order unlawfully disbarred the undersign for litigating to enforce Virginia statutory rights (See http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf). Also, the Petition seeks to protect the rights of all citizens of Virginia from the issuance and use of illegal court rules that has deprived citizens of Virginia of pro hoc vice litigators independent of the dominance of the Judicial Branch, has systematically denied citizens of access to an impartial court, and been used to deny citizens of their right to civil jury trial of the evidence of unlawful criminal and tortious acts by government attorneys, employees, and judges accountable.
Consequently, based on President Theodore Roosevelt’s statement 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 General Assembly must initiate an investigation and hearing of these unlawful acts in willful violation of VA Const., VA Code, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Code §§ 18.2‑499/500, and §§ 18.2‑481/482, by the Court, the Court the Fairfax County Court and Court of Appeals, the Virginia State Bar, the VSBDB, and the Office of Attorney General of Virginia.
Residence: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227
Vienna, Virginia 22180
(571) 477-5350/E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
 Article VI, § 1. Judicial power; jurisdiction, states in relevant part that judicial power in Virginia shall be vested in the 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)
 Article VI, § 5, states in relevant part that the Court shall have the authority to make rules, “but such rules shall not be in conflict with the general law” enacted by the General Assembly. (Emphasis added).
 Article VI, § 7, states in relevant part that justices of the Court, and, “all other courts of record shall be chosen by . . . the General Assembly. . .. (Emphasis added)
 VA Code § 54.1‑3915, states in relevant part that the Court shall not issue rules that, “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)
 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 . . . [it] shall be returnable to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond….
 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 act or order, said act or order is void ab initio—therefore not lawful and not subject stare decisis/res judicata or enforcement because said act or order is a complete nullity from its issuance, and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner. See, Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390, 402 (2007); Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51‑52(2001); Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705 (1925); Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95(1987); and Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352 (1803).
 The General Assembly enacted this Code section to assist the Judicial Branch based upon the holding in 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), that “[t]he powers to . . . make suspension or revocation of license effective in all other courts of [Virginia] must be conferred by statute,” although in a proper case a court does have inherent power to suspend or annul the license of an attorney only in that particular court (Emphases added). 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.
 In summary, the General Assembly used its exclusive legislative powers under Art. VI, §§ 1, 5, & 7 of the VA Const., to enact VA Code § 54.1‑3935, to establish a decentralized attorney disciplinary system–by granting sole authority and jurisdiction to discipline an attorney only to the judges it had chosen in the Court of Appeals and the circuit courts. Obedience by the Court to this decentralized attorney disciplinary system was mandated by Art. VI § 5 of the VA Const., and VA Code § 54-1-3915, by restricting the delegation of rulemaking authority to the Court under VA Code § 54.1‑3909. Specifically, the Court was denied any authority to issue rules inconsistent with rights under either VA Const. and/or VA Code, and the Virginia State Bar was limited to the investigation of a bar complaint, but only at the request of the courts of appeals or circuit courts.
 It is a Class 2 felony for, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority,” thus there is neither “impunity” nor absolute immunity for acts outside of the scope of employment, judicial authority and jurisdiction.
 This was uncovered during the undersigns litigation: first, to stop the violation of Art VI of the VA Const., VA Code, and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the VSBDB issuing a void ab initio order disbarring me in 2006 for litigating to enforce my statutory rights (See http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf); and to obtain damages for the retaliatory criminal/civil business conspiracy by Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder et al. in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499, 500, by the filing of two fraudulent VSBDB complaints for seeking to enforce my statutory property rights in a choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on a client’s claim to treasure trove confirmed valued at $18 Billion USD, and my rights as a father under VA Code and Treaty (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).
 These summary void ab initio orders have aided and abetted the business conspiracy to deprive the undersigned of his law office, profession, reputation, right to employment, property, and rights as a father, by disbarring the undersigned from federal practice based upon the VSBDB void ab initio order in retaliation for successful pro hoc vice litigation challenging the U.S. Department of Justice under the control of Eric Holder during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations, i.e. Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (Undersigned argued and won before the U.S. Supreme Court against Holder, DOJ, and the USCA 4th Cir.’s surreal argument that a DEA agent was within his scope of employment when driving drunk and having sex); Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145 (1996) (Undersigned argued and won the right to hold accountable DOJ attorneys for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1978); Lopez v. the First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (Undersigned argued and won the right to hold accountable DOJ and financial institution for violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act); Cooperativa Multiactiva de Empleados de Distribuidores de Drogas (Coopservir Ltda.)” v. Newcomb, et al., D.C. Cir. No 99-5190, S Ct. No 99-1893 (2000) (Undersigned challenged Pres. Clinton’s Executive Order under War Power Act as a prohibited bill of attainder); and, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., et al. v. Nat’l Ctr. For Missing & Exploited Children, et al., 03-cv-00120 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 27, 2003) (Undersigned challenge the violation of the “zone or war exception to The Hague Convention Children (See http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf).
 The controlling precedent on this issue is Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985), wherein Associate Justice Powell writing for the court held that the practice of law is a “fundamental right” and stressed the importance of pro hoc vice litigators who bring “claims that would be too unpopular for resident lawyers to bring.” (Emphasis added)
 In addition to this Petition challenging the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and the surreal grant of “impunity”/absolute immunity for unlawful acts, the undersigned has filed complaints with the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (OAS) (P-926-16) (See http://www.isidororodriguez.com).