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.

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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

I. 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 legal authority.  This is consistent 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.

II. 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. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct. 08-411(2008); see also, 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.

IV.  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).

  1. 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.

V.  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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s