TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
April 19, 2018
Petition for Investigation of Government Attorneys, Employees, and Justices/Judges Self-proclaimed Impunity and Absolute Immunity from Accountability for Misprision of Felony in violation of 18 U.S. §§ 241 & 242 and VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482.
This Petition seeks to secure accountability for the complicity for misprision of a felony by the Washington D.C. Oligarchy of attorneys/employees in the U.S. Department of Justice, Internal Revenue Service, and Federal jurist consistent with Undersigned Attorney’s win before the United States Supreme Court in See Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing before a jury of the evidence of acts outside of the “scope of employment.”). This is based upon the evidence of complicity by the Washington D.C. Oligarchy of government attorneys, employees, and jurist-to systematically deny access to an impartial court and civil jury trial-to deny Due Process in violation of the 5th, 7th & 14th Amendments, Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 of the Constitution of Virginia, and VA Code §§ 54-1-3915 & 3935, by misuse of delegated authority to issue/use illegal court.
The evidence is indisputable that the Washington D.C. Oligarchy has been complicit Commonwealth of Virginia Federal/State officials and jurists by misprision of a felony to deny access to an impartial court and trial by jury. But, “[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,” including juris (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ). Query, “[t]o what purpose are court’s powers limited, and to what purpose are a limitation in writing on the court if these limitations may, at any time, be passed over and ignored by the courts who are intended to be restrained, controlled and limited?” [Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 176 (1803)]. Thus, Congressional review and reconsideration of their delegated rulemaking authority to the Judicial Branch is consistent with the doctrines of separation of power and federalism.
The evidence in support of the Petition are:
First, in violation of 18 U.S. §§ 241 & 242 and VA Code §§ 18.2.499 & 500 a Class I Misdemeanor business conspiracy was begun to destroy the Undersign Attorney’s law office, profession, reputation, property, and fundamental right to employment as a pro hac vice litigator
by the filing of two fraudulent Virginia State Bar complaints by Eric Holder et al. against Undersign Counsel for litigating (a) to enforce statutory property right in a choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on treasure trove; and, (b) to enforce his rights under Treaty/VA Code as a father (See http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf).
Second, after Undersigned Attorney’s litigation exposed the denial of Due Process by jurists use of illegal court rules violating the explicit limitations and prohibitions under Art. VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the VA Const., and VA Code § 54-1-3915 & 54.1‑3935, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, government attorneys, employees, and jurist were complicit in “resist[ing] the execution of the laws under color of authority” by misprision of a felony in violation of 18 U.S. §§ 241 & 242 and VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482. The evidence confirms their complicity to deny “substantive right” to due process in violation of the Rules Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. § 2072(a), by the issuance of Void Ab Initio Orders to disbar the Undersign Attorney from Federal practice based upon the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) void ab initio order. The jurists used legal sophistry to misuse the judicially created doctrine of stare decisis/res judicata to permit the Supreme Court of Virginia unlawful court rules violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the VA Const., VA Code, the Void Order Doctrine. These unlawful court rules: (a) created an illegal centralized attorney discipline system in Virginia in violation of the decentralized attorney disciplinary system established by VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 3935; (b) illegally created the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a lower “court;” and, (c) illegally appointed VSBDB members as “judges” with jurisdiction/judicial authority to discipline attorneys (See http://www.isidororodriguez.com).
Third, the evidence is that the Honorable Dist. Judge John A. Gibney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Justice of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit systematically denied access to an impartial court and jury trial for misprision of a felony by issuing unpublished Void Ab Initio Orders summarily dismissing Undersign Attorney’s RICO Complaint, denying the right to a jury trial, enjoining/prior restraining future Federal suits for the use of illegal court rules, and self-proclaimed “impunity”/absolute immunity for the denial of Due Process by Void Ab Initio Orders issued by U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, D.C., and Federal Circuits, the U.S. District Court for the E.D. of Virginia, U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia, the U.S. Tax Court, the Supreme Court of Virginia, Fairfax County Cir. Court and Ct. of Appeals.
Consequently, the surreal self-proclaimed impunity and absolute immunity for complicity to violate 5th, 7th, & 14th Amend, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Art. VI of the VA Const., VA Code §§ 18.2‑499/500, and §§ 18.2‑481/482, cannot be permitted. Oversight Investigation is mandated based upon the evidence to systematically deny access to an impartial court and jury trial by Void Ab Initio Orders issued outside of jurisdiction and/or judicial authority to punish the Undersigned Attorney for litigating against the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).
Residence: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227
Vienna, Virginia 22180
(571) 477-5350/E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
 18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy against rights, states in relevant part, “[i]f two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; . . . They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both . . ..
 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law, states in relevant part that, “[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . ., shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both . . .
 VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482, defines “misprision of a felony” as “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority,” and makes it a Class 2 felony to which there is neither “impunity” nor absolute immunity for said acts outside of the scope of employment, judicial authority and jurisdiction.
 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 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352 (1803)—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. 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).
 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 VA General Assembly may from time to time establish.” (Emphasis added)
 Article VI, § 5, states in relevant part that the Court shall have the authority to make rules, “but such rules shall not be in conflict with the general law” enacted by the VA General Assembly. (Emphasis added).
 Article VI, § 7, states in relevant part that justices of the Court, and, “all other courts of record shall be chosen by . . . the VA General Assembly. . .. (Emphasis added)
 VA Code § 54.1‑3915, states in relevant part that the Court shall not issue rules that, “are inconsistent with any statute; nor shall it promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys.” (Emphasis added)
 VA. Code § 54.1‑3935. Procedure for revocation of license.
- If the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any circuit court of this Commonwealth observes, or if a complaint, verified by affidavit is made by any person to such court, that any attorney has. . . violated the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, the court may assign the matter to the Virginia State Bar for investigation. Upon receipt of the report of the Virginia State Bar, the court may issue a rule against such attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked. If the complaint, verified by affidavit, is made by a district committee of the Virginia State Bar, the court shall issue a rule against the attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked.
- If the rule is issued by the Supreme Court . . . [it] shall be returnable to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond….
 Complaints have also been filed with the General Assembly of Virginia, the United Nations, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (OAS) (P-926-16), to stop the surreal void ab initio orders self-proclaiming impunity and absolute immunity for misprision of a felony, (See https://isidororodriguez.com/2017/09/14/united-nations-complaint-for-government-attorneys-employees-and-judges-acting-outside-of-their-jurisdciton-and-judicial-authority-to-grant-themselves-impunity-and-absolute-immunity/).
 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 . . ., 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 ….
 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 Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985), Associate Justice Powell writing for the court held that the practice of law is a “fundamental right” and stressed the importance of pro hoc vice litigators for bring “claims that would be too unpopular for resident lawyers to bring.” (Emphasis added)
 These illegal acts came to light during Undersigned Attorney’s litigation to stop the violation of Art VI of the VA Const., VA Code, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and business conspiracy by Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder et al. in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499, 500, by the filing of two fraudulent VSBDB complaints for seeking to enforce my statutory property rights in a choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on a client’s claim to treasure trove confirmed valued at $18 Billion USD, and my rights as a father under VA Code and Treaty (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).
 The VA General Assembly used its exclusive legislative powers under Art. VI, §§ 1, 5, & 7 of the VA Const., to enact VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 3935, establishing a decentralized attorney disciplinary system–by granting sole authority and jurisdiction to discipline an attorney only to the judges in the County Court of Appeals and the circuit courts. Obedience to the decentralized attorney disciplinary system was mandated by Art. VI § 5 of the VA Const., and VA Code § 54-1-3915, by restricting the delegation of rulemaking authority under VA Code § 54.1‑3909 to the Supreme Court of Virginia, i.e. it was denied any authority to issue rules inconsistent with rights under either VA Const. and/or VA Code, and limited to the investigation of a bar complaint only at the request of the courts of appeals or circuit courts the Virginia State Bar.
 In response 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), holding 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), a decentralized attorney disciplinary system and independent legal profession were maintained by enacting VA Code §§ 54.1‑3909, 3915, & 3935 to assist the Judicial Branch 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.
 Isidoro Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, the Virginia State Bar, and John/Jane Doe, et al. Case No. 3:12-cv-00663-JAG (2013) (https://casetext.com/case/rodriguez-v-doe-5)(https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-13-01638/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-13-01638-0.pdf). See also, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., et al., No. 081146 (2008); Fairfax Cir Ct. No CL-2007-1796, wherein Cir. Court by misprision of a felony held the Judicial Branch absolutely immune for illegal court rules issued in violation of VA Const./VA Code.
 The Undersigned Counsel’s suits for acts outside the scope of employment include: (a) Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (Hon. Chief Justice/4th & D.C. Cir. Justice Rehnquist dissented) (Court rejected Eric Holder, DOJ, and the USCA 4th Cir.’s surreal holding that a DEA agent’s causing an accident while DUI while having oral sex was immune from personal liability, to remand for an evidentiary hearing before a jury of the evidence of acts outside of the scope of employment); (b) Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145 (2nd Cir. 1996) (Court held that DOJ attorneys are accountable for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1978); (c) Lopez v. the First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (Court held that DOJ and financial institution are accountable 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) (Suit against Pres. Clinton’s Executive Order as prohibited by the U.S. Constitution as a 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) (Assuming away of the “zone or war” exception under The Hague Convention).