EMAIL DATED 03/21/2021-TO GROUPS SEEKING TO SECURE ACCOUNTABILITY OF JUDICIAL BRANCH FOR CRIMINAL ACTS VIOLATING FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS
21 Sunday Mar 2021
Category Archives: Violation of the Doctrine of Federalism
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION OF VA CODE § 54.1 3935 (2017) AND VA CODE § 8.01-223.2 (2017), ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ V. VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD, SCOTUS DOCKET NO. 20-25
Featured
PURPOSE
Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) files this Motion to enforce the federal interest under Art. Four, § 4, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution to guarantee a “Republican Form of Government” by ensuring that “justice is applied fairly” to all Citizens by the Government of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia”) by enjoining legislation violating the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const.
Thus, the position of the parties on the disposition of the Motion is unchanged since it seeks on behalf of the Citizens of Virginia compliance by equitable relief with the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., because,
“Crime 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,” Olmsted v. United States, 277 US 438, 451 (1928).
FACTS
In response to Rodriguez’s petitions for grievances (See http://t.co/slv7pz3zd5), in 2017, legislation was enacted to ex post facto amend VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950 to 2017) in violation Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., and Art. XII § 1 of the VA Const., to adopt retroactively the 1998 unconstitutional court rules establishing the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court” and appointing VSBDB members as judges (VA Code § 54.1-3935 (2017)), and, second, legislation was enacted in violation of Act. IV § 14, &3(18) VA Const. as special legislation (VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) and 2019 HB 2111) to grant immunity to the VSBDB as a private association for a business conspiracy.
Thus, this Motion for prospective relief on behalf of all Citizens of Virginia that is distinct from Rodriguez’s underlying petition now before the Court for remand of the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition to obtain impartial judicial review by a Virginia court of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s (“VSBDB”) for issuing in 2006 a Void Ab Initio Order disbarring Rodriguez for litigating to enforce statutory rights by the usurping of judicial authority as a “kangaroo court.”
LEGAL ARGUMENT
To enjoin future “resist[ance] to the execution of the laws under color of authority” by the use of VA Code § 54.1-3935(2017) and VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017), the nondispositive prospective Motion seeks equitable relief under the common law[1] and under VA Code §§ 8.01-184 et seq.
The facts confirm there has been the enactment of legislation by the three branches of the Government of Virginia in violation of the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const., and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const. These amended provisions of Virginia’s Code have been unlawfully enacted to effect in 2017 a retroactive change of the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system established since 1932 under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2009), by passing VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017) to “[c]onform the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” by adopting in 2017 Supreme Court of Virginia Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 issued in 1998 to delegate the General Assembly’s legislative authority unconstitutionally: (a) to retroactivley adopt the Supreme Court of Virginia establishment of a centralized statewide attorney disciplinary system; (b) to retroactivley adopt the Supreme Court of Virginia establishment of the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” with judicial power to discipline attorneys; and, (c) to retroactivley adopt the Supreme Court of Virginia appointment of VSBDB members as “judges.
However, under Art. VI §§ 1 & 7 VA Const., the judicial power to revoke a license to practice law is governed by statute, not court rules. Ex Parte Fisher, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835) 624-25 (1835). See In re Johathan A. Moseley, Sup Ct. VA No 061237 (2007). Thus, in response to the holding in Legal Club of Lynchburg v. AH Light, 137 Va. 249 at 250, 119 SE 55 (1923), citing Fisher‘s Case, supra. (See Footnote 2), the General Assembly enacted in 1932 the Acts of Assembly p. 139 to establish a decentralized statewide attorney disciplinary system to give statewide effect to a lower court’s discipline of an attorney. To this end, the General Assembly only delegated judicial authority to each County circuit court to discipline attorneys. See When Has the Supreme Court of Appeals Original Jurisdiction of Disbarment Proceedings, RHC. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jan. 1924), pp. 246-248; and David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954). Only after the issuance of a rule against an attorney, filed with the county clerk’s office of the county court having jurisdiction. See Campbell v. Third District Committee of Virginia State Bar, 179 Va. 244, 18 S.B.2d 883 (1942).
The citizens ratified Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. granting power only to the General Assembly to enact legislation to give judicial authority, to create “court” and appoint “judges.” Under the amending procedure of Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., only the Citizens of Virginia can amend the Constitution of Virginia to modify their gridwork of separation of power between the three branches of the Government of Virginia.
Consequently, based on the logic under the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the unlawful enactment of VA Code § 54.1-3935(2017) and VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) demands that these sections be enjoined complete nullity from their issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner. 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).
The US Supreme Court decision in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), established the benchmark on the right of Rodriguez to challenge the VSBDB void ab initio order, by holding,
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).
A. IRREPARABLE HARM
Consistent with the doctrine of separation of power, the citizens ratified Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. and granted power only to the General Assembly: (1) to enact legislation giving judicial authority; (2) to enact legislation to create lower and appellate courts to the Supreme Court of Virginia; and (3) to appoint “judges.”
QUERY, UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE VA CONST. WAS ENACTED THE RETROACTIVE 2017 VA SECTIONS TO ADOPT COURT RULES GIVING JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO THE VSBDB AS A LOWER COURT AND MAKING VSBDB MEMBERS AS JUDGES?
The obvious answer is that there has been a willful violation of the separation of power under Art. I § 5, Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 54.1‑3935 (2009) to conceal the VSBDB was acting as a “kangaroo court” and issuing Void Ab Initio Order.[2]
Therefore, Rodriguez has a “legal interest” that has been irreparably harmed by the business conspiracy damaging his law business, reputation, profession, and property rights, and the injunction is mandated. See Radin v. Crestar Bank, 249 Va. 440, 442, 457 S.E.2d 65, 66 (1995). This evidence must be viewed as true to establish ongoing irreparable harm. See Virginia Marine Res. Comm’n v. Clark, 281 Va. 679, 686-87, 709 S.E.2d. 150, 154-55 (2011).
B. INADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW
Based on the record of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by jury,[3] to secure compliance with the limitations and prohibitions under the Constitution of Virginia, there is no amount of monetary relief at law or legal remedy is appropriate or available that will compensate the Citizens for the unlawful enactments in 2017.
C. ADVERSE IMPACT ON DEFENDANT
The damage to the Citizens of the Commonwealth is evident. Any potential harm from the injunction to compel the compliance with the amending procedure of Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const., and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., is nonexistent.
D. LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS
The Citizens placed under Art. I § 5 VA Const. and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., the power exclusively with the General Assembly to enact legislation to give judicial authority, to create courts, and to appoint judges. This constitutional power granted by the Citizens of Virginia may not be delegated. When the General Assembly does delegate authority to promulgate rules, the rules must neither exceed the scope of the authority delegated nor be inconsistent with it (Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 34 Va. App. 273, 276, 540 S.E.2d 521, 522 (2001). Also, the “[d]elegations of legislative power which lack such policies and standards are unconstitutional and void.” Ames v. Town of Painter, 239 Va. 343, 349, 389 S.E.2d 702, 705 (1990) (Emphasis added).
Under the common law, there is no absolute immunity for acts outside legal authority, and this includes legislators that engage in acts outside ‘the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,” Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 US 367 at 376 (1951), and judges acting without judicial authority in “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U. S. 351. Pp. 435 U. S. 355-357; Johnston v. Moorman, 80 Va. 131, 142 (1885); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Under the common law, these issues require a jury trial.[4]
Rodriguez’s Motion for a preliminary/permanent injunction is to enjoin prospectively the enactment of unlawful legislation to prevent the “the execution of the laws under color of authority” Injunctive relief is appropriate when the Court is “satisfied of the plaintiff’s equity” based on the record of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court and statutory/Common law jury trial.
Rodriguez has demonstrated “irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law,” Levisa Coal Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 276 Va. 44, 46 (2008), based upon the violation of VA Code §§ 18.2.499 and 500B & VA Code § 8.01-628.
The Court “will give due weight to the adverse effect of the injunction being granted on the defendant.” supra. Also, the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim is to be considered in deciding to award an injunction. Wings, LLC v. Capitol Leather, LLC, 88 Va. Cir. 83, 89 (Fairfax Co., 2014). Finally, irreparable harm does not mean that there be no “possibility of repairing the injury. All that is meant is that the injury would be a grievous one, or at least a material one, and not adequately reparable in damages.” Callaway v. Webster, 98 Va. 790 (1990).
All the above factors strongly support Rodriguez’s complaint and arguments to enjoin VSBDB void ab initio order.[5]
CONCLUSION
This Motion is filed under the common law because of the enactment of unlawful legislation that has violated VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 54.1‑3935 (2009), and there has been a systemic denial of access to an impartial court to compel compliance with the above-cited provisions of the Constitution of Virginia. For the above reasons, Rodriguez respectfully requests that this Court grant the Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Isidoro Rodríguez
Isidoro Rodríguez
Residence: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227
Vienna, Virginia 22180
(571) 477-5350/E-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com
[1]VA Code § 1-200, states “The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly. VA. Code § 1-10; 2005.
[2]The Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, mandates that when an entity such as the VSBDB has neither constitutional authority, nor statutory authority, not legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any act or order, said act or order is void ab initio—because they are a complete nullity from their 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).
[3]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)
[4]See Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (Rodriguez argued and won before the United States Supreme Court to reverse the USCA for the 4th Circuit, to order a common law evidentiary hearing before a jury for acts outside the scope of employment. In Fox v. Deese, 234 Va. 412, 423-24 (1987). The court held “Resolution of these allegations requires an evidentiary hearing. The defendants are not immune if the evidence establishes that (1) they committed intentional torts, irrespective of whether they acted within or without the scope of their employment, Elder v. Holland, 208 Va. 15, 19, 155 S.E.2d 369, 372_73 (1967), or (2) they acted outside the scope of their employment, see Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 311, 321 S.E.2d 657, 662 (1984).”
[5]In 2017 the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine was compounded by the passage of an unconstitutional ex post facto change to the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system established since 1932 under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2009), to retroactively “[c]onform the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” by adopting the Supreme Court of Virginia’s unconstitutional Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6. See VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017).
REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF INTEREST IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, NO. 20-25
Featured
Posted in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, DEnial of right to civil trial by jury, Fairfax County Criminal Complaint for misprison of felony to violate VA Const and VA Code, Federal Criminal Complaint for Misprison of a Felony, Impunity in violation of the Common Law, Uncategorized, Violation of the Doctrine of Federalism
July 20, 2020
Attorney General of the United States The Hon. William Barr,
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, and,
Assistant United States Attorney for The Eastern District of Virginia G. Zachary Terwilliger
Greetings:In the interest of the United States, I request under 28 USC § 517 (2014) that each of you file a Statement of Interest for SCOTUS to grant the enclosed Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed on July 15, 2020, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, No. 20-25. I underscore that this section states,
“The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.” (Emphasis added)
Therefore, the request for Statement of Interest is made pursuant to the federal government’s interest, right and duty to secure compliance by the courts of the Commonwealth of Virignia with the mandates of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, the limitation on them pursuant to the Constitution of Virginia and Virigna Code (see 2009 Petitoin to NOVA members of General Assemvly). Under Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) at 176 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall defined the Void Ab Initio Doctrine, holding that,
“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?” (Emphasis added)
Consequently, this request for a Statement of Interest under 28 USC. § 517 (2014) is supported by Attorney General John Ashcroft observation that,
“it is in the federal government’s interest to have effective and fair state courts, lest litigants turn to federal courts to resolve matters properly within state court responsibilities.” November 2, 2003, Department of Justice Evaluation of the State Judicial Institute’s Effectiveness to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. (Emphasis added)
In this contest of “the federal government’s interest to have effective and fair state courts,” this request is sent to each of you based on the federal interest of not permitting the government and courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia to systemically deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury of government undertakings outside the scope of legal authorty and scope of employment in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the separation of power under Art. VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the Constitution of Virginia (VA Const.”), and the prohibitions under VA Code § 54-1-3915 & 54.1 3935 (See Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court).
Thus, this request is under Art. Four, § 4, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution which makes it a federal interest to ensure that “justice is applied fairly,” by guaranting that the three branches of the government of the Commonwealth of Viringia provide a “Republican Form of Government” assuring access to an impartial court and a common law trial by jury to obtain accountability for government undertakings outside the scope of legal authorioty and scope of employment. See also Martin v. City of Boise, No. 09-cv-540-REB (D. Idaho September 28, 2015), ECF No. 276, 2015 WL 5708586. Statement of Interest at 5 note 23).
In this context of securing accountability, the request is supported by the holding in Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), which I argued and won before the Supreme Court of the United States. There in 1995 Solicitor General Drew Days filed an amicus brief and argued with me before the Court to support the granting of the Writ of Certioari. The Court issued the Writ reversing the USCA for the 4th Circuit and the US Dist Ct for ED VA, to reject then Attorney General Eric Holder and DOJ’s surreal argument and policy that there was absolute immunity even for the DEA agent’s acts while DWI and having sex in the moving vehical. Thus, the Court rejected Eric Holder’s knee jurk policy of absolute immunity from accountability for acts outside of scope of employement by ordering remand to an impartial court court to hold an evidentiary hearing before a jury of the evidence.
Similarly, here the request for a Satement of Interest in support of the attach Petition for Writ of Certioari is to obtain impartial judicial review by reversal of the the summary dismissal below of the Writ of Mandmaus and Prohibition evidencing a policy by the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia (see page i, ii, and iii of the attach Petition), to deprive the Citizens of the Commonwealth of an independent legal profession by not stopping the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) from operating as a “kangroo court” issuing void ab initio orders under unconstitutional court rules.
Compounding this defiance of the VA Const., and VA Code, is the record of a Class 2 felony to “resist the execution of the laws under color of authority” in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2 481 & 482 and VA Code §§ 18.2 499/500, by the VSBDB concerting to “combine, assocate, agree, [and] mutually undertake” a business conspiracy with Washington DC Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder et al to deprive the undersign of his business and profession by the VSBDB void ab initio order to disbar the undersign for litigating to enforce his statutory property rights, and rights as a father (see 2003 Request for investigation of collusion by DOJ and the courts to violate “zone of war” exception under Treaty ) (see page 8 of the attached Appendix) (See Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., US Dist. Ct. ED VA 12 cv 663 JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013); See also Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, Washington Post, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC. Ct No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct 08-411(2008) (See Request in 2014 to US Attorneys for EDVA and DC, as well as FBI for the Investigation, Arrest, Indictment, and Prosecution for Eric Holder et a., misprision of a felony in violation of 18 U.S. §§ 4 & 241/242, 26 U.S.C. § 7214, and VA Code §§ 18.2 499/500.).
To answer any questions, have your staff contact me at (1.571.477.5350). Respectfully, Isidoro Rodriguez cc: President Donald J. Trump, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20500Filed July 13, 2020–IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, on Petition for A Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Featured
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
I. Whether the 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution (“U.S. Const.”), the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and the integrity and independence of the Commonwealth’s judicial system under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const), and VA Code § 54.1-3915 & § 54.1-3935A (1950 to 2017), has been violated by the denial of the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition
confirming the pattern and practice since 2006:
First, of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court so to not hold the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s (“VSBDB”) accountable for usurping judicial authority and jurisdiction to disbar Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine?;
Second, of the systemic denial of access to a statutory jury trial under VA Code § 18.2-499 & 500 so to not hold the VSBDB accountable for participating, cooperating and assisting the business conspiracy of Washington D.C. Attorneys/Lobbyist Eric Holder et al. to injure Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez reputation and profession by the issuance of a void ab initio order?; and,
Third, of the systemic denial of access to a common-law jury trial so to not hold the VSBDB et al. accountable for malfeasance for the void ab initio order, as well as for lobbying to violate VA Const.’s amending procedures, to violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws, and to violate the prohibition on enacting special legislation granting the VSBDB immunity for a business conspiracy?
LIST OF ALL DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS WHICH HAVE SYSTEMICALLY DENIED ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT TO RECIPROCALLY ENFORCE THE VSBDB VOID AD INITIO ORDER..
1. Isidoro Rodriguez v. General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., S. Ct. VA No. 190579 (September 2, 2019); Fairfax County Circuit Court Case No. 2018-16227 (February 12, 2019).
2. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., US Dist. Ct. ED VA 12-cv-663-JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013), cert. denied 2014.
3. In the matter of Isidoro Rodriguez, US Sup. Ct. Docket No. D-02466 (May 26, 2010), cert. denied.
4. Isidoro and Irene Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 10691-09, cert. denied; and, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 11855-12, cert. denied 2014.
5. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jack Harbeston, and Eric Holder et al., US Dist. Ct. WD Wash. No. 11-cv-1601 (JCC).
6. Irene Rodriguez and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Douglas Shulman, et al., D.C. Cir. Ct. No. 11-cv-1183(JEB).
7. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, ML No. 2307 (December 14, 2011).
8. Isidoro Rodriguez v. US Tax Court, D.C. Cir. No. 10-1016, cert. denied, US Sup. Ct. No. 10-1066 (Closed, March 21, 2011).
9. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia Employment Commission, US Sup Ct. Docket No. 09-954 (Cert. Denied March 19, 2010), S. Ct. VA Record No. 092494, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0291-09-4.
10. Isidoro Rodriguez v. US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, (D.C. Cir. No. 08-7134) cert. denied No. 09-237 (November 2, 2009).
11. In the matter of Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., (4th Cir. No. 06-9518), cert. denied No. 08-942 (March 20, 2009), injunction denied (March 24, 2009).
12. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Standing Committee on Attorney Discipline, (3rd Cir. No 08-8037), cert. denied No. 08-1121 (Closed, May 18, 2009).
13. Isidoro Rodriguez v. US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, (2nd Cir. No 08-90089); cert. denied No. 08-942 (Closed, July 31, 2009).
14. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct. 08-411(Closed, 2008).
15. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, U.S. Dist. Ct. for the E. D. VA, Docket No. 1:08-mc-00022, May 28, 2008.
16. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al., (S. Ct. No. 07-419, November 2, 2007); and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia, (Va. Sup. Ct No. 07-0283), cert denied Nos. 07-A142 and 07A370 (2007).
17. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Devis and VA State Bar, VA Sup Ct. No. 06052, cert. denied US Sup Ct. Nos. 06A619/06-875 (Closed, October 2006).
18. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Pereira, 163 F. Appx. 227 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 954 (2006).
19. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Guy Vander Jagt, et al., Sup. Ct. of Va. No 040941/040942, cert. denied, No. 04-867 (Feb. 28, 2005).
20. Isidoro Rodriguez v. HFP Inc., et al., 77 F. Appx. 663 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 903 (2004).
21. Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children et al., D.C. No. 03-120(RWR); D.C. Cir. No. 03-5092, cert. denied USSC No. 03-301 (2006).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
a. When Federal Question Raised.
Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) raised the federal questions in the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and its amendment at page 1 thru 15, filed on November 28, 2018, and on February 19, 2019 with the Fairfax Ct. Cir. Ct. They were raised again in the Petition for Appeal to the S. Ct. VA on August 28, 2019, and during oral argument on February 21, 2020. The courts below never addressed the challenge to the systemic denial of access to an impartial court, as well as the denial of the right to due process and equal protection of the laws in violation of the Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.
b. Material Facts.
In 2003 Washington, D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder and Washington, D.C. Lobbyist Jack Harbeston (“Holder et al.”) violated VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23) by entering Virginia to “combine, associate, agree, and mutually” did file two VSBDB bar complaints to injure Rodriguez’s federal civil litigation practice, reputation, profession, right to employment and statutory property rights.
The two bar complaints state they were filed:
First, for Rodriguez litigating to enforce a statutory Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on treasure trove under VA Code § 54.1-3932 (1950) (App-10). See Isidoro Rodriguez v. HFP Inc., et al., 77 F. Appx. 663 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 903 (2004); Isidoro Rodriguez v. Guy Vander Jagt, et al., Sup. Ct. of Va. No 040941/040942, cert. denied, No. 04-867 (Feb. 28, 2005); Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995); 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); Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145 (1996) Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997); and,
Second, for Rodriguez litigating to enforce the rights of a father under Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Oct. 1980, T.I.A.A. No 11,670, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (App-7 and App-17) (“Treaty”), VA Code, and Joint Custody Agreement to protect his US citizen Son from being forced from Virginia in 2002 to a “zone of war” in the Republic of Colombia (App-17), Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children et al, D.C. No. 03-120(RWR); D.C. Cir. No. 03-5092, cert. denied USSC No. 03-301 (2006).
At the outset, Rodriguez challenged the judicial authority and jurisdiction of the VSBDB (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml). In response, in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23) the VSBDB did “combine, associate, agree, and mutually” participated in the business conspiracy by issuing in 2006 a void ab initio order to injure Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights.
Subsequently, as part of the business conspiracy Rodriguez was disbarred from federal practice from 2006 to 2010 by the summary reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch 137, 140 (1803), by the Office of the Clerk the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, DC and Federal Circuit, the U.S. Dist. Court for the ED VA, and U.S. Tax Court (page I, ii, iii).
Also, as part of the business conspiracy in 2006 Rodriguez was deprived of his property by: (a) the Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Tax Court’s reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order to declare “frivolous” and then to strike Rodriguez’s litigation expenses-to thereby assess “taxes greater then allowed by law,” See Isidoro and Irene Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 10691-09, cert. denied; and, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 11855-12, cert. denied 2014; and, (b) by the Virginia Employment Commission reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order to deny Rodriguez unemployment compensation benefits.
Based on this additional evidence of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court to assist the business conspiracy and violation of the Void Ab Initio Order, Rodriguez filed litigation under VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23). Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jack Harbeston, and Eric Holder et al., US Dist. Ct. WD Wash. No. 11-cv-1601 (JCC) (2011). See Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct 08-411(Closed, 2008).
After the repeated summary dismissal’s refusing to stop the business conspiracy and the reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order, Rodriguez in 2012 file under VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23), as well as under Bivens and RICO, see Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., US Dist. Ct. ED VA 12-cv-663-JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013), cert. denied 2014.
But there too, the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. did summarily dismissed to again deny access to an impartial court: (1) by not disqualifying himself because the Judge’s wife was a member of the Defendant VSBDB; (2) by granting absolute immunity, by granting summary dismissal, and by granting a nationwide Federal prefiling injunction of any future litigation for violation of the VA Const, VA Code; and, (3) by holding a lack of jurisdiction in Virginia to enforce VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23)– despite the evidence that Holder et al. entered Virginia to file the two fraudulent VSBDB bar complaints. See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. Devis and VA State Bar, VA Sup Ct. No. 06052, cert. denied US Sup Ct. Nos. 06A619/06-875 (Closed, October 2006); Isidoro Rodriguez v. Pereira, 163 F. Appx. 227 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 954 (2006).
Based on this additional evidence of the business conspiray and systemic denial of access to an impartial court, Rodriguez did petition for redress of the grievances prior to the opening each January from 2010 to 2019 of the General Assembly for the VSBDB violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine (See 2010 Petition to VA General Assembly).
After receiving no response to the petitions for grievances fo six years, Rodriguez filed on May 15, 2016, a Complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, No. P-926-16 / MC-367-16, for violation of the right to due process and equal protection of the laws under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the absolute grant of immunity to government attorneys and judges. (See also January 2017 United Nations Complaint).
In response to these complaints, the VSBDB et al. used the cronyism and political influence in the legal profession of Virginia to surreptitiously lobby the General Assembly after 2017: (a) in violation of the prohibition on ex post facto laws, to enact a retroactive amendment adopting the 1998 unconstitutional S. Ct. VA Court Rules Part 6, § IV, ¶13 creating the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” and permitting the S. Ct. VA to appoint VSBDB members as judges (App-26); and, (b) in violation of the prohibition under Art. IV § 14, ¶3(18) VA Const. (See VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) (App-22) to enact special legislation granting the VSBDB immunity for the business conspiracies (See VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) (App-22) (see also General Assembly 2019 HB 2111, introduced on January 5, 2019, four (4) days after Rodriguez petitioned the Fairfax County members of the General Assembly).
Based on this evidence, Rodriguez filed below the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition to compel the VSBDB to either explain under what it acts as a “court” or to enjoin it usurping judicial authority (Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, Fairfax County Circuit Court, Case No. CL 2018-16433). See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. General Assembly of the Virginia, et al., Fairfax County Circuit Court, Case No. CL 2018-16227).
In written and oral responses the VSBDB in obfuscated and failed to cite any authority under VA Const., or VA Code for their sitting as a “court” and acting as “judges.” But rather, the VSBDB obtusely assert in violation of the prohibitions under Art. VI § 5 VA Const. and VA Code § 54.1-3915 (1950 to present), that the delegation of rule making authority under VA Code § 54.1-3909 (1950) gave to the S. Ct. VA the power to issue court rules giving the VSBDB judicial authority and jurisdiction to create the VSBDB as a “court,” and to appoint VSBDB members as judges.
Furthermore, the VSBDB arrogantly defied the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by arguing that Rodriguez lacked standing to challenge the VSBDB 2006 Void Ad Initio Order. Without addressing this evidence of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court to violate the U.S. and VA Const., as well as VA Code, the Fairfax County Circuit Court issued a summary prefiling injunction order (App-2) and a summary dismissal order of the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition (App-4) on June 28, 2019. The Petition for Appeal was refused by the S. Ct. VA on March 2, 2020 (App-1).
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
There has been repeated violation of the First, Fifth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, by Fairfax County Circuit Court’s systemic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by a jury: (1) so to not hold the VSBDB accountable for a void ab initio order usurping judicial power to assist Holder et al’s business conspiracy; (2) to not enjoin an ex post facto amendment (App-26); and, to not enjoin special legislation granting immunity (App-22).
I. THE SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT.
A. Violations of the 5th and 14th Amendment to US Const., and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the systemic denial of access to an impartial court.
The Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition Court is founded upon records (page i, ii, and iii) evidencing the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the systemic denial of access to an impartial court, the systemic denial to a statutory, and the systemic denial to a common law jury trial, so to not hold the VSBDB accountable for usurping of jurisdiction and judicial authority by the issuance in 2006 of the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order (App- 6) to further Holder et al.’ s business conspiracy.
This evidence of the willful violation of the limitations and prohibitions under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA., and VA Code VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950-2017), is confirmed by the VSBDB argument that under VA Code § 54.1-3909 (1950) delegation of rule making authority the S. Ct. VA had the power to issue rules establishing the VSBDB as a “court” and for the S. Ct VA to appoint VSBDB members as judges with jurisdiction to discipline an attorney.
Furthermore, VSBDB argument confirms the willful violation of the controlling 1923 precedent under Legal Club of Lynchburg v. A.H. Light, 137 VA 249, 430, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), citing Fisher’s Case, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835), that the power to either suspend or revoke an attorney’s license in all of Virginia, must be “conferred by statute,” although in a proper case a court does have inherent judicial power to suspend or annul the license of an attorney practicing only in that particular court. To repeat, 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).
Based on this holding the 1932 Acts of Assembly p. 139 (codified at VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950-2017)), was enacted to assist the judicial branch by establishing a decentralized attorney disciplinary system to give by statute the exclusive judicial authority and jurisdiction to discipline attorneys to the ninety-five (95) County Circuit Court and eleven (11) Court of Appeals (App-25). When Has the Supreme Court of Appeals Original Jurisdiction of Disbarment Proceedings, R.H.C. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jan. 1924), David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia, 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954) Furthermore, under Art. VI § 5 VA Const. (App-21), and VA Code § 54.1 3915 (2050) (App-24) the S. Ct. VA was specifically prohibited from promulgating any court rules inconsistent with this decentralized attorney disciplinary system.VA Code § 54.1-3934 (1950) Legislative History to 1998 amendment to VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1998) .
Under VA Code § 54.1-3935C (1950-2017) the Virginia State Bar and by extension the VSBDB, was established only as,
“an administrative agency of the [S. Ct. VA] for the purpose of investigating and reporting [to the Circuit Court] violations of rules and regulations adopted by the court under this article.”
Therefore, the evidence confirms that no statute was ever enacted prior to the 2017 ex post facto legislation that amended VA Code § 54.1-3935 (1950-2017) to retroactively adopt the unconstitutional S. Ct. Va rules creating the VSBDB and vesting it with judicial power and jurisdiction as a “court”.
Consequently, benchmark of this action and all the past litigation (pages i, ii, and iii), has been to enforce the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under English common law as helin The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (KB 1613) that was incorporated as a cornerstone of United States jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch 137, 140 (1803). There it was held that,
“[c]ourts are constituted by constitutional authority and they 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 just voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” (Emphasis added)
This Court reconfirmed the Void Order Doctrine by holding that due process mandated that State court must assure the right of access to an impartial judicial branch based on the constitutional obligation on the courts to decide matters presented by litigants, because:
“With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We 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, 19 US 264, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821).
Regarding the mandate under the 5th and 14th Amendments, this Court held in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319, 325, 326 (1937), that the right to due process includes those fundamental liberties that are “implicit” in the concept of ordered liberty, such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed.” To this end,
“[t]he Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested State tribunal in both civil and criminal cases.” Marshal v. Jern Co, 446 US 238, 242 (1980).
Therefore to assure that nether a judge nor court are permitted to act outside of their jurisdiction and judicial authority the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine is incorporation into 5th & 14th Amendments guarantee due process by confirming that any State proceedings that is outside of constitutional or statutory judicial authority or jurisdiction is void ab initio and actionable.
The Court recognized that there is a requirement on both State and Federal court to have access to an impartial court to assure effective vindication of a separate and distinct right to seek judicial relief:
(a) for violation of the First Amendment’s Right to Petition Clause, California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 US 508, 513 (1972);
(b) for violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, Murray v. Giarratano, 492 US 1, 11 n.6 (1989) (plurality opinion); Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 US 305, 335 (1985); and,
(c) for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 US 551, 557 (1987).
In accordance withprecedents this Court’s holding in Christopher v. Harbury, 536 US 403, 412-418 (2002), that to assert a claim of denial of access to an impartial court the claim must be first made in an underlying cause of action, the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition was filed in the Fairfax County Circuit Court against the VSBDB:
(a) to obtain judicial review of the VSBDB usurping judicial power and jurisdiction in violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1-3915 & § 54.1-3935A (1950-2017), to assist Holder et al.’s business conspiracy by issuance of a Void Ab Initio Order;
b. to obtain judicial review of the violation of the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const.;
c. to obtain judicial review of the violation of the mandate of separation of power between the General Assembly, and the S. Ct. VA and the Executive Branch by the ex post facto amendment to retroactively expand the power of the S. Ct VA. by adopting of the 1998 unconstitutional court rules creating the VSBDB and appointing VSBDB members as judges; and,
d. to obtain judicial review of the violation of the prohibition on enacting special legislation to grant immunity to the VSBDB as a private association.
This mandate of assuring access to an impartial State court is an integral part of due process restriction on the Judicial Branch. As Patrick Henry observed in 1777,
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. (Emphasis added).
Consequently, the right to due process, and the right to equal protection of the laws mandate that when an individual or entity has neither constitutional authority, nor statutory authority, nor inherent legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any order, said order is void ab initio, and is a complete nullity from its issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner and cannot be reciprocally enforced by any governmental entity or court by either stare decisis or res judicata. 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).
Therefore, because the VSBDB has neither constitutional authority, nor statutory authority, nor inherent legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any valid order disbarring Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights (App-9), the VSBDB 2006 void ab initio order is a complete nullity from its issuance it may be impeached directly or collaterally at any time or in any manner. In that context, the systemic denial of access to an impartial Virginia and Federal court (page i, ii, iii), is a violation of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. But the VSBDB void ab initio order issued as a “kangaroo court” was repeatedly reciprocal enforced by the abuse of the judicially created abstention doctrines of res judicata and stare decisis in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. See Daniels v. Thomas, 225 F.2d 795, 797 (10th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 932 (1956); See also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462, 486-487 (1983); and, Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (March 7, 2011).
The VSBDB has willfully defied the 5th and 14th Amend., and the prohibitions under the VA Const., and VA Code, to assist Holder et al.’s business conspiracy, which was compounded by unlawful acts by government attorneys in the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
This must be rejected by the Court, because as prophetically observed by Adam Smith,
“[w]hen the judicial is united to the executive power, it is scarce possible that justice should not frequently be sacrificed to what is vulgarly called politics. The persons entrusted with the great interests of the state may even without any corrupt views, sometimes imagine it necessary to sacrifice to those interests the rights of a private man. But upon the impartial administration of justice depends the liberty of every individual, the sense which he has of his own security.” The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. I., Of the Expense of Justice, pp 200.
B. Systemic denial of the right to a jury trial of the evidence of malfeasance.
The Fourteenth Amendment, mandates, “the duty of every State to provide, in the administration of justice, for the redress of private wrongs.” Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Humes, 115 US 512, 521 (1885).
To this end both the Seventh Amendment and Art. I § 11 VA Const. guarantee the right to a common-law trial for malfeasance. As early as The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (KB 1613), it was determined that the jury trial was one of the most important safeguards against arbitrary and oppressive governmental policies.
In this context, Thomas Jefferson observed in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789, that,
“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.”
Later, In re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136 (1955) (Black, J.), the Court held,
“[O]ur system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. This Court has confirmed that all doubts should be resolved in favor of jury trials considering the strong federal policy favoring such trials and right under the Constitution. Simler v. Conner, 372 US 221, 83 S.Ct. 609, 9 L.Ed2d 691 (1967).
See also, Grafton Partners LP v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 36 Cal 4th 944, 116 P.3d 479 (2005) (court finding a violation of the right to a jury trial under California Constitution-similar to VA Const. Art. I Section 11).
This common law right to a trial by a jury of the evidence of wrongdoing by acts outside the scope of authority was also confirmed in the 1995 case argued and won by Rodriguez against Eric Holder et al,’s policy of granting absolute impunity to government employees and judges for acts for outside of legal authority. Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 US 417, 115 S.Ct. 2227, 132 L.Ed. 2d 375 (1995) (4th Cir USCA reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing before a jury to determine if the government employee acts DUI while having sex were within or outside the scope of employment).
The common law right to a trial by jury is augmented by the statutory right to a jury trial for a business conspiracy under VA Code §§ 499 & 500. The existence of a business conspiracy is a jury question of facts-not for the court. As explained in Commercial Business Systems v. BellSouth, 249 Va. 239 at 267-68 (1995), statutory conspiracy claim,
is a matter for determination by a jury. whether a conspiracy caused the alleged damaged ordinarily is a question for a jury. Ordinarily it is the function of a jury to determine whether and to what extent a plaintiff has been damaged. (Emphasis added)
The record below confirms the systemic denial of access to a trial by jury by the summary denial of motions filed under 7th Amendment U.S. Const., Art I § 11 VA Const., VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 and the common law, Rodriguez has been denied of his right due process and equal protection of the laws. Therefore, this Court must exercise its supervisory authority to assure access to an impartial jury trial to enforce the prohibitions and limitations under both VA Const., and VA Code.
As observed by Attorney General John Ashcroft,
“it is in the federal government’s interest to have effective and fair state courts, lest litigants turn to federal courts to resolve matters properly within state court responsibilities.” November 2, 2003, Department of Justice Evaluation of the State Judicial Institutes’s Effectiveness to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. (Emphasis added)
II. VIOLATION OF ART. XII § 1 AND ART. 1 § 9 VA CONST. BY THE EX POST FACTO AMENDMENT ADOPTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES.
A. Denial of the 1st Amend Right to Petition for Grievances.
Under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. only the Citizens of Virginia can amend the Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., to expand the power of the S. Ct VA. to permit the S. Ct. VA to create the VSBDB as a court and to appoint VSBDB as judges.
This legislative power granted by the Citizens to the General Assembly can neither be delegated nor modified without the Citizens ratifying an amendment to the VA Const.
Also, under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., the VSBDB is prohibited from lobbying the General Assembly to enact an ex post facto law in 2017 to adopt the 1998 court rules to have retroactive effect.
In Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 138 (1816), Chief Justice John Marshall defined an ex post facto law, as
“one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.”
Therefore, an ex post facto law has an impact on past transactions. See Ex parte Garland, 71 US (4 Wall.) 333, 377 (1867); See also McCoy v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 169 SE 174, 169 SC 436 (1954). In Calder v. Bull, 3 US ( 3 Dall.) 386, 390, 397 (1798), this court determined that the ex post facto clause only prohibited the passage of criminal or penal measures that had a retroactive effect. But, too this court held that attorney discipline proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and subject to the prohibition under the ex post facto clause, Ex parte Garland, 71 US (4 Wall.) 333, 381 (1867) (companion case to Ex parte Garland, supra.). In both decisions, the court confirmed that an attorney has certain procedural and substantive rights to ensure due process and equal protection of the laws. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 US (4 Wall.) 277 (1806); In Re Ruffalo, 390 US 544, 550-51, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117,121-23 (1968); see also Mississippi State Bar v. Young, 509 So. 2d 210, 212 (Miss. 1987); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 345 A.2d 616, 620 (Pa. 1975).
This right to due process is mandated because attorney discipline proceedings are highly penal character. However, in violation of the above VA Const. restrictions, and Rodriguez’s right under the First Amendment and Art. I VA Const. to petition for grievances (See 2009 Presentatoin to Fairfax County member of General Assembly ):
first, the VSBDB lobbied for the enacting in 2017 of the ex post facto amendment of VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950 to 2017) (App-25) to retroactively adopt in violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., and Art. XII § 1 of the VA Const. the 1998 unconstitutional court rules establishing the VSBDB as a “court” and to appoint VSBDB members as judges (VA Code § 54.1-3935 (2017)) (App-26), and,
second, the VSBDB lobbied for the enacting in 2017/2019 in violation of Act. IV § 14, &3(18) VA Const. special legislation aimed to grant immunity to the VSBDB as a private association VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) and 2019 HB 2111.
Thus the Amended Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition was properly filed based this evidence that VA Code § 54.1-3935 (2017) was enacted to conceal the ongoing violations of VA Const and VA Code by retroactively
“[c]onform[ing] the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” (App- 28)
to the unconstitutional 1998 Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 establishing the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” and to permit the S. Ct. VA to appoint VSBDB as “judge” with jurisdiction and judicial authority to discipline an attorney. Under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., the General Assembly was and is without power to circumvent the limitations and prohibitions under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const.
Thus the 2017 ex post facto amendment is highly penal since it obfuscates and seeks to deprives Rodriguez of his right of action challenging the business conspiracy and the violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.
III. VIOLATION OF ART. IV § 14, ¶3 (18) VA CONST. PROHIBITION ON ENACTING SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO GRANT IMMUNITY.
Under Art. IV, § 14 ¶ 3 (18) VA Const., the General Assembly is prohibited from enacting any special, or private law,
“[g]ranting to any private corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive . . . immunity”.
The VSBDB is not a court, nor a state agency nor a corporation. It is an administrative agency of the S. Ct. VA within the unincorporated professional organization of the Virginia State Bar. Neither governmental or judicial immunity applies to them, thus they are not clothed with immunity.
Therefore, therefore courts below have denied access to an impartial court by not holding the VSBDB accountable for lobbying for the special legislation [VA Code § 8,01-223.2 (2017) (App-22) and General Assembly 2019 HB 2111], granting immunity for the business conspiracy.
CONCLUSION
The evidence confirm the denial of the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition as an integral part of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court:
(a) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for the void ab initio order to assist Holder et al.’s business conspiracy;
(b) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying to violate the amending procedure under Art. XII §1 VA Const.;
(c) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying to violate the prohibition of ex post facto law under Art. I, 10, cl. 1 U.S. Const., and Art. I § 9 VA Const.;
(d) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying to violate the separation of power under Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., to retroactively “conform the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1932-2009)] for the disciplining of attorneys” to the 1998 unconstitutional VA S. Ct. Rules Part 6, § IV, ¶ 13; and,
(e) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying for special legislation to not be held accountable for assisting and furthering the business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 by Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder et al.
For the above reasons, the petition must be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Isidoro Rodriguez
Former Member of the Bar
2671 Avenir Place, Apt 2227
Vienna, Virginia 22180Telephone: 571.477.5350
Argument to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia et al, in Isidoro Rodriguez vs. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (No 191136). Isidoro Rodriguez vs. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (No 191136).
Featured
February 11, 2020, at 1420 hrs. in lieu of filing a Reply Brief:
GOOD AFTERNOON. I REQUEST PERMISSION FOR MY COURT REPORTER (IT WAS GRANTED).
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
I AM ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ. I ARGUE TO SEEK REVERSAL, AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD ENJOINING THEIR SITTING AS A KANGAROO COURT BASED ON THE ISSUANCE OF A VOID AB INITIO ORDER. THE VOID ORDER WAS ISSUED AS THE LINCHPIN OF A PROHIBITED STATUTORY BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST/ATTORNEY ERIC HOLDER ET AL. TO DAMAGE MY BUSINESS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, REPUTATION, PROFESSION AND RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT BY REVOKING MY LAW LICENSE IN RETALIATION FOR LITIGATING TO ENFORCE MY STATUTORY PROPERTY RIGHT IN A CHOATE ATTORNEYS LIEN AND RIGHTS OF A FATHER TO PROTECT MY U.S. CITIZEN SON FROM BEING TAKEN FROM A “ZONE OF WAR” IN FY 2000 IN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA. THIS IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER ART. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA CONST., AS WELL AS VA CODE § 54.1-3935 (1950 TO 2017). (SEE 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.
THUS, THE BENCHMARK FOR THE WRIT ARE THE CONTROLLING PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT FROM 1835 TO 2007 MANDATING THAT PURSUANT TO ART. VI VA CONST. THE JUDICIAL POWER TO REVOKE A VIRGINIA LAW LICENSE WITH STATEWIDE EFFECT CAN ONLY BE BY STATUTE THAT WAS ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. THUS, NO COURT CAN ISSUE COURT RULES IT POWER TO DISBAR AN ATTORNEY WITH STATEWIDE EFFECT INCONSISTENT WITH RIGHT UNDER VA CODE. SEE EX PARTE FISHER, 6 LEIGH (33 VA.) 619 (1835) 624-25 (1835), LEGAL CLUB OF LYNCHBURG V. A.H. LIGHT, 137 VA. 249 AT 250, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), AND IN RE: JOHATHAN A. MOSELEY, SUP CT. VA NO 061237 (2007). THUS, THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS BASED ON THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE UNDER VIRGINIA CONST., VA CODE, AND CASE LAW,[1] AS MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRUNCH 137, 140 (1803), STATES,
“[C]OURTS ARE CONSTITUTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND THEY 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 JUST VOIDABLE, BUT SIMPLY VOID, AND THIS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL.”
ALL OF THE ABOVE COMMAND THAT WHEN AN ENTITY CREATED BY COURT RULES SUCH AS THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD HAS NEITHER CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, NOR STATUTORY AUTHORITY, NOR INHERENT LEGAL POWER, NOR JURISDICTION TO RENDER ANY ORDER. THUS THE 2006 ORDER VOID AB INITIO IS A COMPLETE NULLITY FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUANCE AND MAY BE IMPEACHED DIRECTLY OR COLLATERALLY AT ANY TIME, OR IN ANY MANNER. THIS PARTICULARLY BASED ON THE SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND COMMON LAW JURY TRIAL TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE OF MALFEASANCE.
THEREFORE, THE WRIT SEEKS,
- TO ENFORCE THE PROHIBITIONS AND MANDATES OF SEPARATION OF POWER UNDER I § 5 VA CONST.;[2]
- THE WRIT SEEKS TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION UNDER ART. VI §§ 1[3], 5[4] & 7[5] VA CONST. WHEREIN THE CITIZENS GAVE ONLY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THE POWER TO IMPART JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND TO APPOINT JUDGES.
- THE WRIT SEEKS TO ENFORCE VA CODE § 54.1-3915[6] & § 54.1-3935 (1950-2009),[7] ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSISTENT WITH THE VA CONST. RESTRICTIONS TO ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE DECENTRALIZE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM IN EACH IN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF VIRGINIA, IN TANDEM WITH THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS POWER UNDER VA CODE § 54.1-3934.[8]
- THE WRIT SEEKS TO ENFORCE PROHIBITIONS OF 1 § 9 AND ART. XII § 1 OF THE VA CONST.,[9] TO ENJOIN THE EX POST FACTO AMENDMENT OF VA CODE § 54.1-3935 TO ADOPT RETROACTIVELY IN 2017 THE 1998 COURT RULES THAT BESTOWED JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ON THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD AND APPOINTED THEM AS JUDGES.
- THE WRIT SEEKS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, COMPENSATION UNDER VA CODE §§ 18.2-499 & 500[10] FOR A RETALIATORY BUSINESS CONSPIRACY TO REVOKE MY LAW LICENSE FOR LITIGATING TO ENFORCE MY STATUTORY PROPERTY RIGHTS IN A CHOATE VA CODE ATTORNEYS LIEN ON A CLIENT’S CONTRACT CLAIM TO TREASURE TROVE VALUED AT $18 BILLION DOLLARS AND LITIGATING TO ENFORCE MY RIGHTS AS A FATHER UNDER JOINT CUSTODY AGREEMENT/VA CODE TO PROTECT MY U.S. CITIZEN SON FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST HIS WILL IN 2000 TO A “WAR ZONE” IN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA. THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD ISSUED THE 2006 VOID AB INITIO ORDER TO DAMAGE MY BUSINESS, REPUTATION, PROFESSION, EMPLOYMENT, AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO 2006 FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
THE GOVERNMENT SURREALLY NEITHER DENIES NOR CHALLENGES THE ABOVE EVIDENCE OF THEIR WILLFUL CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AND THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST/ATTORNEY ERIC HOLDER ET AL.
RATHER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MANDAMUS ACTION BELOW OPPOSES THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT BASED ONLY ON THE DELEGATION OF COURT RULEMAKING AUTHORITY UNDER VA CODE § 54.1-3909, AND ARGUING LACK OF STANDING DESPITE THE CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST AND VA CODE.
THIS IN AND OF ITSELF IS A CONFIRMATION OF THE WILLFUL CHARACTER OF THE VIOLATION OF THE VA CONST. AND VA CODE, AS WELL AS THE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BY VIOLATION OF THE DECENTRALIZED SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER THE 1950 VA CODE BY COURT RULES THAT UNLAWFULLY BESTOWED JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPOINTING OF ITS MEMBERS AS JUDGES TO DISCIPLINE ATTORNEYS.
FINALLY, THE WRIT IS SOUGHT BASED ON THE RECORD OF A SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY TO ENFORCE THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER VA CONST. AND VA CODE. THE LITIGATION RECORD FROM 2004 TO THE PRESENT PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF THIS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING :
FIRST, U.S. DIST. CT. HON JUDGE GIBNEY (EDVA) FAILURE TO RECUSE HIMSELF BASED ON THE FACT THAT HIS WIFE IS A MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD, AND ISSUING IN 2013 A SUMMARY ORDER GRANTING IMPUNITY, PRIOR RESTRAINING, AND ISSUING A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION DEPRIVING ME OF ACCESS TO ANY FEDERAL COURT SO FOR THE VIOLATIONS OF VA CONST AND VA CODE AND BUSINESS CONSPIRACY.
SECOND, IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONS FOR REDRESS BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (HTTP://T.CO/SLV7PZ3ZD5), FROM 2017 TO 2019: (A) THERE WAS ENACTED AN EX POST FACTO AMENDMENT TO VA CODE § 54.1-3934 TO ADOPT RETROACTIVELY THE 1998 COURT RULES; AND, (B) THERE WAS ENACTED VA CODE § 8.01-223.2 AS SPECIAL LEGISLATION IN VIOLATION OF ART. IV § 14, ¶3(18), TO GRANT IMMUNITY TO THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD FROM ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY (SEE ALSO 2019 HB 2111).
Isidoro Rodriguez
Rodriguez and Rodriguez
World Trade Center Barranquilla
Cale 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313
Barranquilla, Colombia S.A.
(571)477-5350
[1] 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] ARTICLE I § 5 VA CONST. “THAT THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH SHOULD BE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT; AND THAT THE MEMBERS THEREOF MAY BE RESTRAINED FROM OPPRESSION, . . ..”
ART. VI § 1 VA CONST., STATES IN RELEVANT PART THAT JUDICIAL POWER SHALL BE VESTED, IN “COURTS OF ORIGINAL OR APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUBORDINATE TO THE SUPREME COURT AS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY FROM TIME TO TIME ESTABLISH.”
[4] ART. VI § 5 VA CONST., STATES THAT ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE RULES, “SUCH RULES SHALL NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL LAW” ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
[5] ART. VI § 7 VA CONST., STATES IN RELEVANT PART THAT JUSTICES OF, “ALL OTHER COURTS OF RECORD SHALL BE CHOSEN 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. 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.
[7] VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2007). 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.
[8] VA Code § 54.1-3934. Revocation of license by Board. The Board of Bar Examiners may, for good cause, revoke any license issued by it at any time before there has been a qualification under it in any of the courts of this Commonwealth. Code 1950, § 54-72; 1988, c. 765.
[9] ARTICLE XII § 1 VA CONST. AMENDMENT, STATES, THAT ANY AMENDMENT TO THIS CONSTITUTION ARE TO BE REFERRED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THEN IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO SUBMIT SUCH PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITIZENS FOR APPROVAL.
[10] VA Code § 18.2-499. Combinations to injure others in their reputation, trade, business or profession; rights of employees. A. 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 any one 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 A.
VA Code § 18.2-500. Same; civil relief; damages and counsel fees; injunctions. — (a) Any person who shall be injured in his reputation, trade, business or profession by reason of a violation of § 18.2-499, may sue therefor and recover three-fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable fee to plaintiff’s counsel; and without limiting the generality of the term, “damages” shall include loss of profits. . ..
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PETITION FOR APPEAL, RECORD NO. ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Petitioner Pro Per, v. The General Assembly of Virginia, The Office of the Governor of Virginia, The Supreme Court of Virginia, The Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, The Virginia State Bar, and The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, Defendants-Respondents.
06 Monday May 2019
Posted in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, DEnial of right to civil trial by jury, Fairfax County Criminal Complaint for misprison of felony to violate VA Const and VA Code, Federal Criminal Complaint for Misprison of a Felony, Impunity in violation of the Common Law, Violation of the Doctrine of Federalism
Tags
Accountability, Limitation under VA Const., Misprison of a felony by violation of right to due process, separation of power
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
1. The Circuit Court erred under VA Code § 1-200 (2005) in violation of the Common Law exception to Sovereign Immunity for acts outside the sphere of legislative authority, scope judicial authority, and scope of employment by the defiance of the separation of power under Art. I §§ 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.), the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto laws under Art. I § 9 VA Const., by enacting VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) to retroactively adopt the 1998 court rules issued in violation of VA Code § 54.1 3915 (1950-2017), VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1950-2009), and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, as alleged in Petitioner’s Complaint.
These errors were preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Orders of the Circuit Court denying Petitioner’s motions on January 4, February 1, 8, and 22, 2019 and Order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint on February 21, 2019.
2. The Circuit Court erred by a grave injustice in not impaneling a Special Grand Jury to investigate and report on the evidence of Class 2 & 6 Felony under VA Code §§18.2-481 & 482 to “resist the execution of the laws under color of authority” and misdemeanor business conspiracy under VA Code 18.2-499 & 500, as alleged in Petitioner’s Complaint.
This error was preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Orders of the Circuit Court dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint.
3. The Circuit Court erred in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the use of Res Judicata to dismiss the Complaint.
This error was preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Orders of the Circuit Court denying motions on January 4, February 1, 8, and 22, 2019 and dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint on February 21, 2019.
4. The Circuit Court erred in granting Respondent’s Demure based on a misnomer, lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
This error was preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Order of the Circuit Court denying motions on January 4, February 1, 8, and 22, 2019 and Order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint on February 21, 2019.
5. The Circuit Court erred in holding that the General Assembly cannot be served under court-ordered publication VA Code §§ 8.01-316(b) & 318.
This error was preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Order of the Circuit Court denying the motion on February 22, 2019, and Order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint on February 21, 2019.
NATURE OF THE CASE/MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW
On November 14, 2018, Plaintiff-Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County a Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgement seeking equitable and monetary relief under VA Code §§ 8.01-184 et seq., against Respondents, including entities created under Art. IV § 1 & 14, Art. V § 1, and Ar, VI § 1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”) respectively the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“General Assembly”), Office of the Governor of Virginia (“Office of the Governor”) and the Supreme Court of Virginia (“Court”), as well as the the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar, and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (”VSBDB”).
Rodriguez provided evidence (Plaintiff’s Ex A through V filed with the Complaint and thereafter Supplemental filings), establishing that from 2003 to the present Respondents during the administrations of Governors Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Bob McDonnell, Terry McAuliffe, and Ralph Northam, acted outside the sphere of their legitimate legislative activity, the scope of judicial authority, and employment to unlawfully expand the power of the Court by violating: (a) the separation power under Art. I § 5 VA Const. and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const.; (b) the amending procedures under Art. XII § 1 VA Const.; (c) the prohibition under Art. I § 9 VA Const on the enactment of ex post facto legislation; and, (d) the right to due process under Art. I §§ 11 & 15 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, by a business conspiracy and Class 2 & 6 felony VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, to “[resist] the execution of the laws under color of authority.”
In response to Rodriguez’s petitions to the General Assembly for an investigation, and complaints to the OAS and the UN for the surreal grant of “impunity” for acts outside fo legal authority (www.isidororodriguez.com), Respondents in 2017 enacted ex post facto VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) to expand the power of the Court by retroactively “conform[ing] the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1932-2009)] for the disciplining of attorneys” to unconstitutional Court Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6, issued in 1998 that created a “parallel” centralized statewide attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control, establishment of the VSBDB as a lower court with judicial authority to discipline attorneys and appointing VSBDB members as judges. The motive for violation of Art. I § 5 VA Const. and VA Code § 54.1‑3915 (1950-2017) restrictions on the Court was to defy the rights of all citizens of the independent decentralized legal profession established in 1932 under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1950-2009).
All other the Respondents were serviced by the Sheriff on November 28, 2018, but the General Assembly refused to accept service. On December 26, 2018, Rodriguez filed an affidavit under oath that the General Assembly refused to accept service by the Sheriff at the General Assembly Building, Richmond, VA, declined to name an agent for service, and refused all U.S. postal service mail. On January 2, 2019, the Circuit Court issued an Order of Publication by the Washington Times on January 10, 17, 24, and 31, 2019. On January 31, 2019, the newspaper filed a Notarized Affidavit of Publication. Rodriguez filed on February 8, 2019, a motion for Default Judgement against the General Assembly for failure to appear as Ordered.
On January 4, February 1, 8, and 22, 2019, the Circuit Court denied all of Rodriguez’s motions for (1) an injunction of the VSBDB 2006 Void Ab Initio Order unlawfully revoking Rodriguez’s license to practice law for litigating to enforce his statutory property rights and rights as a father; (2) a Writ Quo Warrento against Respondents; (3) an injunction of ex post facto VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017); (4) for a Special Grand Jury; and, (5) for Default against the General Assembly for failure to answer/appear pursuant to court-ordered publication.
On February 21, 2019, the Circuit Court held a hearing on Respondents’ Plea to Dismiss based on Sovereign Immunity, Res Judicata and Demurrer. The Circuit Court dismissed Rodriguez’s Complaint, over specific objections. Rodriguez filed on March 12, 2019, a Notice of Appeal and Notice of Filing of the Transcript.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Citizens ratified Art. I § 5 VA Const., to mandate the separation of power between the General Assembly, the Office of the Governor, and the Court.
Based on the open distrust of the motive of individuals in government generally, and the Court expressly of the drafters of the VA Const., the Citizens ratified Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., to give only to the General Assembly the power to enact statutes giving judicial authority, establishing lower courts, and appointing judges. Also, the Citizens ratified Art. XII § 1 VA Const., to reserve to themselves the power to amend the constitutional restrictions on the Court.
In 1932 in response to the holding in Legal Club of Lynchburg v. A.H. Light, 137 Va. 249, at 250, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), citing Fisher’s Case, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835) (“[t]he power to go further and make suspension or revocation of license effective in all other courts of the Commonwealth [this] must be conferred by statute,” (Emphases added), the Acts of Assembly p. 139 (“1932 Act”) (codified as VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009), was passed to maintain the separation of power and restrictions on the Court by establishing a decentralized statewide attorney disciplinary system authorizing the judicial power to discipline attorneys only to County Circuit Courts and Courts of Appeal, and explicitly denying the Court power to discipline attorneys directly (VA Code § 54.1‑3934, giving only to the Board of Bar Examiners power to revoke an attorney’s license).
To assure the Court’s compliance with the decentralized attorney disciplinary system, Art. VI § 5 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1 3915 (1950-2017) prohibited the Court from promulgating court rules or regulations inconsistent with VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009). 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; and David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954).
However, in defiance of the prohibitions on the Court, the Respondents used legal sophistry to interpret VA Code § 54.1‑3909 & 3910 to issue Rule Part 6, ( IV to establish a “parallel” centralized attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control by issuing court rules in 1998 to give judicial authority the VSBDB as a “lower court” to discipline attorneys, and to appoint VSBDB members as “judges.” (Respondents Admissions and the Circuit Court order, Transcript of 02/21/2019 hearing pages 33 and 34).
Shortly after that, in retaliation for Rodriguez’s litigations during the Clinton/Bush Administrations Washington D.C./Virginia Lobbyist/Lawyer Oligarchy under the stewardship of Eric Holder undertook a business conspiracy in violation of VA Code 18.2-499 & 500 to damage Rodriguez’s Federal pro hoc vice litigation practice, reputation, profession and property rights. Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder and Mr. Jack Harbeston (former Managing Partner of Rodriguez’s clients Sea Search Armada and Armada Company (“SSA”) dissolved in 2002) filed in 2003 two fraudulent VSBDB bar complaints against Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights: (a) in a Choate Virginia Attorneys’ Lien under VA Code § 54.1-3932 on SSA’s contract claim to 50% of the Treasure Trove (USD 18 Billion) on the sunken Spanish 1707 Galleon San Jose; and, (b) as a father pursuant to Treaty, VA Code, and Joint Custody Agreement (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).
On November 27, 2006, the VSBDB issued a Void Ab Initio Order usurping judicial authority to revoke Rodriguez’s license for litigating to enforce statutory rights. This Court affirmed in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia, (Va. Sup. Ct No. 07-0283, VSB Docket Nos. 04-052-0794 and 04-052-1044), cert denied Nos. 07-A142 and 07A370 (2007). See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al., (S. Ct. No. 07-419, November 2, 2007).
Rodriguez filed two administrative claims in 2007 under the common law and Virginia Tort Claims Act VA Code ( 8.01-195 challenging the VSBDB void ab initio order, and filed civil actions seeking damages.
But Respondents systematically denied access to an impartial common law jury trial and courts to deny challenges the VSBDB void ad initio order and to enforce Rodriguez’s Choate Attorney’s Lien. In violation of their judicial authority, the courts assume away the Common Law exception to the claim of either sovereign immunity, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine bar to the use of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or stare decisis. See Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., et al., No. 081146 (2008); Fairfax Cir Ct. No CL-2007-1796) (void order holding the VSBDB absolute immune for violation of the VA Const. and VA Code); see Plaintiff’s Ex. G1 filed with the Complaint listing the use of the VSBDB void ab initio order; see also, Isidoro Rodriguez v. John/Jane Doe of the VSBDB et al., (2013) EDVA No. 3:12-cv-00663 (the Hon. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney surreally issued an unpublished nationwide void order granting “impunity” by enjoining and prior restraining the filing future federal litigation challenging the violations of due process, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Const., and VA Code).
In response to Rodriguez’s complaints to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the OAS (P-926-16), and the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, the General Assembly on January 9, 2017, enacted ex post facto VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) to expand the power of the Court by retroactively “conform[ing] the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1932-2009)] for the disciplining of attorneys” to the unlawful Court’s rule.
In response Rodriguez’s January 5, 2019 petition, in violation of Art. IV §14 ¶4(18) House Bill No 2111 was introduced on January 9, 2019, as Special Legislation to give immunity from accountability to government attorneys and judges from civil liability for their business conspiracy since 2003 (Supplemental Filing on February 21, 2019).
AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT
- THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN VIOLATING THE COMMON LAW EXCEPTION TO THE DEFENSE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. (Assignment of Error No. 1)
- The Standard of Review Is De Novo.
“The legal question presented by a circuit court’s decision to sustain a demurrer requires the application of a de novo standard of review.” Cline v. Dunlora South, LLC, 284 Va. 102, 106, 726 S.E.2d 14, 16 (2012) (citing Glazebrook v. Bd. of Supervisors of Spotsylvania County, 266 Va. 550, 544, 587 S.E.2d 589, 591 (2003)). “On appeal, a plaintiff attacking a trial court’s judgment sustaining a demurrer need only show that the court erred, not that the plaintiff would have prevailed on the merits of the case.” Tronfeld v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Va. 709, 713, 636 S.E.2d 447, 449 (2006).
- UNDER THE COMMON LAW THERE IS NO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS VIOLATING THE VA CONST., VA CODE, AND THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE.
At the outset, the General Assembly enacted VA Code § 1-200 (2005), to mandate that the,
“The Common Law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly. VA. Code § 1-10; 2005. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the English Common Law controls all judicial decisions, except when the General Assembly specifically enacted legislation to change the Common Law rule.
Regarding the defense of Sovereign Immunity, Common Law only permitted its use when a defendant was acting within the legal authority. This is consistent with the Magna Carta which held officials and judges accountable for acts outside of their legal authority and jurisdiction. As explained by Sir Edward Coke, 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038‑41,
[W]hen a Court has. . . has no [judicial authority or] jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [not before a person who a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process . . . (Emphasis added)
The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), held that an action for equitable relief and damages would lie for the conspiracy to issue and enforce a void order as part of a criminal enterprise outside of legal authority, and the facts were to be decided by a common law trial by jury. Thus, the Common Law provided for accountability and removal of officials and judges for acts outside of their jurisdiction and judicial authority, 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries 140 at 141.
The Common Law did not permit the defense of Sovereign Immunity to allow the aiding and abetting of unlawful acts outside of governmental functions.
Regarding the Common Law and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 140 (1803), held that,
“[c]ourts are constituted by authority and they cannot 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 just voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.”
Thus, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine mandates when an entity has neither constitutional authority, nor legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any order as a lower court-it is a void ab initio order as a complete nullity from the date of its issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally at any time, or in any manner. 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).
Consistent with the Common Law, VA Code §8.01-195.3, to permit the holding of a judge or government attorney accountable with no immunity from tort suit for acts outside of the scope of employment or judicial authority or jurisdiction (relief from tort liability apply only to actions within “official capacity”). In Sayers v. Bullar, 180 Va. at 229 and 230, 22 S.E.2d at 12 and 13 (1942), the court held that sovereign immunity applies only when government entities, officials, or employees were “acting legally within the scope of their employment.” Thus, Respondents cannot claim Sovereign Immunity for:
(A) Acts outside the scope of employment, Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (Rehnquist dissenting) (Rodriguez argued/won before the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse to USCA 4th Cir., to obtain the holding that there was a right to a common law evidentiary hearing before a jury on the alleged acts of government employees acts outside the scope of employment); See also Burnam v. West, 681 F. Supp. 1169, 1172 (E.D. Va. 1988).
(B) Grossly negligent conduct, McLenagan v. Karnes, 27 F.3d 1002 (4th Cir. 1994);
(c) intentional torts, Tomlin v. McKenzie, 251 Va. 478, 468 S.E.2d (1996); or,
(4) Acts characterized as bad faith, Tomlin v. McKenzie, 251 Va. 478, 468 S.E.2d 882 (1996).
Rodriguez under the Common Law is only required to prove that Respondents have acted outside the scope of legislative authority, judicial authority, or employment in violation of the VA Const, and VA Code. Therefore the Circuit Court erred because there is no absolute immunity from equitable and injunctive relief for the acts in violation of the limitations and prohibitions under Art. I § 5 & 9 VA Const., Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., and, Art. XII § 1 VA Const.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN NOT EMPANELING A SPECIAL GRAND JURY TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL ACTS OUTSIDE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY. (Assignment of Error No. 2)
The record confirms that neither courts nor prosecutors have investigated Rodriguez’s criminal complaint (Plaintiff’s Ex. K filed with the Complaint). But, as explained in U.S. v. Udzuela, 671 F.2d 995 (1982, Ill.),
Strictly speaking, the grand jury is a constitutional fixture in its own right, belonging to neither the executive nor the judicial branch, see United States v. Leverage Funding Systems, Inc., 637 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied; United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312-13 (9th Cir.), cert. denied; Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 712 n.54 (D.C.Cir.1973); In re April 1956 Term Grand Jury, 239 F.2d 263, 268-69 (7th Cir. 1956) (Emphasis added)
The Handbook for Virginia Grand Juries-City of Charlesville, explains that under the Common Law the Special Grand Jury serves as a quality control device on government, or more appropriately, serves as a (watchdog( against the wrongdoing. See Fairfax County Resolves (1774) (Developed the issues that led to the Declaration of Independence).
Under VA Code § 19.2-211, a Special Grand Jury is allowed to investigate wrongdoing and crimes, but not to indict. Vihko v. Commonwealth, 393 S.E.2d 413 (VA.C. App 1990) (the evidence gathered by the Special Grand Jury is presented to the regular grand jury, which may indict).
Here the evidence is that both the Respondents and the Circuit Court have misinterpreted VA Code § 54.1‑3909 & 3910, to circumvent the prohibitions under Art. VI § 5 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1‑3915 (1950-2017) violate the 1932 Act’s decentralized attorney discipline system under VA Code § 54.1‑3935A (1950-2009).
This evidence confirms the ongoing violations of the VA Const., and VA Code, by the Class 2 & 6 felony VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482 to, “[resist] the execution of the laws under color of authority,” and business conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499 & 500.
Under Va. Code §19.2-191 and § 19.2-206, a Special Grand Jury may be convened by the circuit court at any time upon the court’s own motion to investigate and report any condition which involves or tends to promote criminal activity. Furthermore, the 2007 ed. of the Handbook for Virginia Grand Jurors at page 16, published by Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia, states that ([a]ny Citizen . . . may ask the Circuit Court of a county to convene a Special Grand Jury. ( Therefore, a Circuit judge may impanel a Special Grand Jury to investigate a crime and malfeasance upon the request of a citizen of Virginia. See 70-71 Va. AG 106A; See also 156 ALR 330.
Finally, under VA Code §§ 8.01-186 and 8.01-188 the Circuit Court was given the power to grant further relief “whenever necessary and proper,” this includes the ability to impanel a Jury or logically a Special Grand Jury–to investigate the Respondents violations of the Common Law, VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ad Initio Doctrine. Thus, the Circuit Court erred in permitting the Special Grand Jury to be captured by the Respondents.
III. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED BY VIOLATING THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE RESTRICTION BY ITS USE OF RES JUDICATA. (Assignment of Error No. 3)
It is a fundamental doctrine of due process under the common law, the VA. Const. VA Code, and the U.S. Const., that Rodriguez as the party affected must have his day before a validly constitutionally created impartial court and had an opportunity to a common law trial by a jury of the business conspiracy outside legal authority. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 6 S Ct 1194 (1886).
But, the VSBDB and this Court have not issued a valid judgment by their violations of the VA Const., and VA Code limitations, prohibitions and protections of due process. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503 (1876). See also Restatements, Judgments 4(b).
In violation of the mandates of separation of power and due process under Marbury v. Madison, supra., Art. I §§ 5, 11 & 15 VA Const., and Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., VA Code § 54.1‑3915 (1950-2017), and VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009) in 2006 the VSBDB issued an unlawful Void Ab Initio Order revoking Rodriguez’s license as an attorney for litigating to enforce his statutory rights. Compounding this illegal act, this Court issued a void order affirming. However, Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), holds that,
Since the adoption of the [VA Const.] and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the validity of void 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)
But the record confirms this was never done (Plaintiff’s Exhibit G1). All of the courts issued void order outside of their jurisdiction and constitutional authority in violation of the common law exception to the claim of sovereign immunity and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to grant government employees and judges “impunity” for violations of the VA Const., and VA Code. Court records confirm that all of the dismissals were for lack of venue “without prejudice,” or specifically “declined to rule on [Respondents] plea of res judicata,” or and did not address the allegations of a business conspiracy. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct. App. N. 07-5334enied US Sup Ct. 08-411(2008); see also, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Hon. Hassell et al., Fairfax Circuit Court No. CL-2007-15396, VA S. Ct. No. 081146, cert. denied 08-574 (2008). See petitions for redress to the General Assembly (Plaintiff’s Exhibit D and I), Complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) (P-926-16), and a Petition with the United Nations Committee on Human Rights for the grant of “impunity” (see http://www.isidororodriguez.com).
As explained in Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390 (2007) that held,
(An order that is void ab initio is a complete nullity that may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner. ( (quoting Singh v. Mooney, supra.) Furthermore “[a]n order is void ab initio rather than merely voidable, if ‘the character of the judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt'” (quoting Evans v. Smyth‑Wythe Airport Comm’n, 255 Va. 69, 73(1998); Morgan v. Russia and Triangle Assocs., L.L.C., 270 Va. 21, 26‑27 (2005).
The Circuit Court violated the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine and the Common Law by its use of res judicata.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DEMURE BASED ON LACK OF STANDING, MISNOMER, AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. (Assignment of Error No. 4)
- Rodriguez has Standing
The Complaint is filed based upon the willful violation of the limitations and prohibitions under Art. I §§ 5, 11 & 15 VA Const, Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, as well as the particularized damage to Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession and property rights.
Since 2003 Rodriguez was deprived of his fundamental right to his pro hoc vice law practice, reputation, profession, and property right in his Choate Virginia statutory Attorney’s Lien based the use of unconstitutional Court’s rules. Since January 2017 the General Assembly enacted ex post facto VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017) to retroactively “conform” the statute to the unlawful court rules.
Thus, Rodriguez has standing as a citizen of Virginia and as an attorney injured by the VSBDB void ab initio order under the holding in Howell v. McAuliffe, 788 S.E.2d 706 (Va. 2016), where this Court held that citizens have standing if there is “sufficient interest” and “the parties will be actual adversaries.” Howell, 788 S.E.2d at 713 (quoting Cupp v. Bd. of Supervisors, 318 S.E.2d 407, 411 (Va. 1984)).
To claim standing Rodriguez need only “demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,” to assure a court, “that the issues will be fully and fairly developed.” Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 371 (2001).
That standard is easily satisfied given the litigation record (Plaintiff’s Ex. G1 filed with the Complaint) and the evidence of the business conspiracy by the violation of legally protected interest mandated by the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., before the separation of power under Art. I § 5 & 9, and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const, can be altered between the General Assembly and the Supreme of Virginia.
Also, these injuries are “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 460, and both concrete and particularized to Rodriguez given the systematic denial of access to Common Law trial by a jury of the evidence of the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine in any Federal court based on the Hon J. Gibbons surreal nationwide prior restraint and injunction. See Damian Stinnie et al., v. Richard D. Holcomb, in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, Case No. 3:16-CV-00044 US Dist. Ct W.D. VA, Charlottesville (December 21, 2018) (Supplemental Authority filed with the Circuit Court on December 26, 2018).
- Misnomer
The Circuit Court dismisses based on “misnomer,” holding that Respondents could not be sued as entities in their respective constitutional titles, but rather must be sued as individuals. (Transcript page 32).
The VA Const., specifically name and empower the General Assembly (not the House of Delegates and Senate), the Governor, and the Court as constitutional entities under Art. I § 5, VI, ( 1, 5, and 7, and Art. XII § 1 VA Const. Thus, the Circuit Court erred because:
First, the restrictions and the mandate of separation of power under Art. I § 5 VA Const. and Art. § 1, 5 & 7 VA Const. and logic is that the constitutional entities name, not in the individual’s designation of an office holder from 2003 to the present, are to be held accountable for constitutional violations.
The New York Court of Appeals held in Brown v. State, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 1144 (N.Y. 1996), that the entity, as well as the individual, are liable so to deter deprivations of state constitutional rights because no government can sustain itself when the law immunizes official violations of substantive rules leaving victims without any realistic remedy. As constitutional officers, the acts will be a violation of the oath of their respective duties of the office, and grounds for removal from office. As explained in Clea v. Mayor and City Council of Maryland, 541 A.2d 1303 at 1314 (Md. 1988):
“To accord immunity to the responsible government officials, and leave an individual remediless when his constitutional rights are violated, would be inconsistent with the purpose of the constitutional provisions.”
Second, the evidence is that since 2003 it has been the constitutional entities, not just the individual that held office during the administrations of Governors Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Bob McDonnell, Terry McAuliffe, and Ralph Northam – who have been involved in the business conspiracy to systemically violate the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.
Third, logic dictates that the action for the violation of the VA Const. and VA Code, be against the constitutional entities not restricted to the individual office holders.
Thus, the Circuit Court erred.
- Rodriguez has Stated a Cause of Action
The Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine holds that Rodriguez has a right to challenge and attacked in any court at any time, (directly or collaterally.( Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95(1987). Thus, Rodriguez has stated a cause of action where relief is to be granted.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CANNOT BE SERVED UNDER VA CODE §§ 8.01-316(B) & 318 BY COURT-ORDERED PUBLICATION. (ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5)
The General Assembly refused to answer or otherwise defend below-despite repeated notice by Circuit Court order of publication under VA Code § 8.01-318.
Under VA Code § 8.01-317 upon receipt of proof of publication” by the affidavit from the Washington Times on January 31, 2019, the clerk of court must enter a default against the Defaulted General Assembly before or on February 21, 2019. Once the clerk enters default, the Court must take as true the factual allegations in the Complaint for Declaratory Judgement. AME Fin. Corp. v. Kiritsis, 281 Va. 384, 392-93 (2011). There is no exception to Chapter 8, Process requirements.
In Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that as a constitutional entity a state legislature has the standing to sue, and logically be sued. Thus, subject to service of process under VA Code by the Sheriff or by publication.
Thus, the Circuit Court erred in ordering that the General Assembly cannot be served by publication.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant review to correct the errors of the Circuit Court.
Dated: May 2, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
Isidoro Rodríguez, Pro Per, Residence: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227, Vienna, Virginia 22180, (571) 477-5350/E-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com
PETITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPLICITY BY THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD, THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR, AND THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINA TO VIOLATE THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS OF THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION, VA CODE, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE.
09 Saturday Dec 2017
The Petition seeks to stop the violations of the limitations and prohibitions of Art. VI §§ 1,[1] 5,[2] and 7[3] of the Constitution of Virginia (VA Const.”), and VA Code § 54-1-3915,[4] by the Supreme Court of Virginia (“Court”) issuance and use of illegal court rules in complicity with the Virginia State Bar, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”), and the Office of Attorney General of Virginia (“Government Attorneys”). The benchmark of the Petition is President Theodore Roosevelt 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.”
These allegations are based upon the evidence of violations of VA Code § 54.1‑3935,[5] wherein the General Assembly used its exclusive power to establish a decentralized attorney disciplinary system granting authority and jurisdiction to discipline an attorney with statewide effect only to the judges it had chosen to the Court, Court of Appeals, and circuit court.[6] Obedience to the decentralized attorney disciplinary system was mandated by Art. VI § 5 of the VA Const., and VA Code § 54-1-3915 restricting the delegation of rulemaking authority to the Court under VA Code § 54.1‑3909, by prohibiting the Court from issuing rules inconsistent with rights under either VA Const. and/or VA Code, and restricting the Virginia State Bar-created under Court rules authorized by the General Assembly–only to the investigation of bar complaints, but solely upon the request of legally chosen judges of established courts under the VA Const. and/or VA Code.
But, the evidence is both flagrant and irrefutable,[7] that in violation of the restrictions, limitations, and prohibitions of Art. VI, §§ 1, 5, & 7 of the VA Const., VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, & 3935, and §§ 18.2‑499/500, the 5th, 7th, & 14th Amend. to the U.S. Const., 26 U.S.C. § 7214, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine,[8] the Court issued unlawful rules to establish the VSBDB as a court and complicity to use the Court’s unlawful rules to assume away the decentralized attorney disciplinary system established by the General Assembly.[9] Subsequently, the courts and government attorneys were complicit in resisting the execution of the laws under color of authority in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482,[10] by their use of legal sophistry and misuse of stare decisis/res judicata, by:
First, violating Art. VI § 1 of the VA Const., to disregard prohibition against establishing the VSBDB as a “court” with jurisdiction and judicial authority to discipline attorneys;
Second, violating Art. VI § 7 of the VA Const., and VA Code § 54-1-3935(B), to disregard the prohibition on the Court from choosing and appointing the 21 members of the VSBDB as “judges” under its control and defying the restriction on the Virginia State Bar;
Third, violating the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the Court and the lower court’s affirming the VSBDB void ab initio order and in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482 granting themselves Judicial Immunity for unlawful acts and malfeasance (See Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., et al., No. 081146 (2008); Fairfax Cir Ct. No CL-2007-1796);
Fourth, violation of VA Const., VA Code, U.S. Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the unlawful use the VSBDB and Court’s void ab initio orders to disbar me 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,
Fifth, violation of the VA Const., VA Code, U.S. Const., and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, by the Hon. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney and U. S. Court of Appeal for the 4th Circuit issuance of unpublished void orders issued in 2013 to systematically deny access to an impartial court and jury trial to challenge the above void ab initio orders and unlawful acts by enjoining/prior restraining future litigation by use of legal sophistry and misuse of stare decisis/res judicata, (See Isidoro Rodriguez v. John/Jane Doe of the VSBDB, et al., (2013) EDVA No. 3:12-cv-00663 (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).[11]
Consequently, pursuant to their oath of office and the doctrine of separation of power each member of the General Assembly is petitioned to investigate the above evidence complicity of the Court, the Virginia State Bar, VSBDB, and Office of Attorney General, to violate Art. VI, §§ 1, 5, & 7 of the VA Const., VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, & 3935, and the 5th, 7th, & 14th Amends. to the U.S. Const.,[12] and, to take action to stop the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by jury to obtain accountability and damages for violation of VA Const., VA Code, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and VA Code §§ 18.2‑499/500.[13]
Respectfully submitted,
Isidoro Rodríguez
Residence: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227, Vienna, Virginia 22180; (571) 477-5350/E-mail business@isidororodriguez.com
[1] 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)
[2] 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).
[3] 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)
[4] 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)
[5] 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….
[6] This was done by the General Assembly to assist the Judicial Branch subsequent to 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), which held 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.
[7] This evidence was uncovered during my past 14 years of litigation to obtain: first, damages for the retaliatory criminal/civil business conspiracy of Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder et al. in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499, 500, evidenced by the filing of two fraudulent VSBDB complaints filing law suits 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); and second, to stop the usurping of the General Assembly’s power to choose judges and establish lower courts under Art VI of the VA Const. and VA Code—as well as stop the violation of the 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).
[8] 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).
[9] The motive for these illegal acts was to systematically deprive citizens of an independent legal profession, access to an impartial court, and civil jury trial to bar liability for criminal and tortious acts of government attorneys, employees, and judges.
[10] 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.
[11] These final void ab initio orders have aided and abetted the business conspiracy to deprive me of my law office, profession, reputation, right to employment, property, and rights as a father. The evidence is that I was disbarred from federal practice in retaliation for my successfully challenging the U.S. Department of Justice under the control of Eric Holder during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations: See also Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (I 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) (I 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) (I 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) (I 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) (I 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).
[12] I resort to filing this Petition with each member of the General Assembly, because my elected representatives Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (Dem.), and Del. Marcus B. Simon (Dem.), failed to act pursuant to the doctrine of separation of power to protect me from the above unlawful acts and malfeasance. (See My address to NOVA representatives respectively 2009 and 20010, Fairfax County Judicial Center (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ), and (http://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5).
[13] In addition to this Petition seeking protection as a citizens of Virginia and the United States pursuant to the U.S./Virginia Constitutions, VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, I have filed complaints with the United Nations and with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (P-926-16), Memorandums of Law, and as exhibits the Void Ab Initio Court Orders, pursuant to my fundamental rights under Treaty to challenge the surreal void ab initio orders granting “impunity” and absolute immunity to government attorneys, employees, and judges for unlawful acts (See http://www.isidororodriguez.com) requested, electronic PDF copy will be sent).
https://static.change.org/product/embeds/v1/change-embeds.js“>Petitiion can be signed at Change.org
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
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 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th 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.
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
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 5th, 7th, and 14th 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
[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 4th 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
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 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 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 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th 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 § 54.1‑3915. 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 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 5th, 7th, and 14th 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 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th 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 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th 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 4th 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]
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 . . ..” [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).
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.[17]
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,”[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]
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.[20]
- 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]
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.
- 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,
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,[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]
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.[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
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.[34]
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,
“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.
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.). [36]
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 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th 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.
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).[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.
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.[38]
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.
[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] 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 4th 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 4th 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,
[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)
[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,
“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)
[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:
“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.”
[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.
Systemic Denial of Access to an Impartial Court and Trial by Jury by the Virigina and Federal Judical Branches for Act Outside their Judicial Authority 