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 5th,[8] 7th[9] and 14th[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 4th/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 2nd 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 11th 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 5th, 7th, and 14th 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 4th 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. 5th and 14th 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,
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.
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 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)
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 7th, and 14th 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 5th, 7th, and 14th 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 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, states in relevant part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of . . . property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
[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.” 8th 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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.
, to reflect and recall that based upon his talks to me of his love for our country and our flag, I took the oath in 1964 more than 53 years ago to defend the “constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” when I volunteered for the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and the Regular U.S. Air Force.