The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“General Assembly”), the Supreme Court of Virginia (“Court”), the Office of the Governor of Virginia (“Governor”), the Attorney General of Virginia (“VA AG”), and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) were sued respectively on November 14, and 19, 2018, by the filing of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment^[1] and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus^[2]. Under the Common Law. the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”) and VA Code, accountability is sought for the unlawful acts of government attorneys outside scope of employment, for the unlawful acts of legislators outside the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, and void ab initio orders of judges outside of their judicial authority and jurisdiction by 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 by business conspiracy (See Memorandum at  http://www.isidororodriguez.com).  The evidence confirms that:

             First, in 2017 the General Assembly enacted ex-post-facto legislation outside “the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,” Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 at 376 (1951) in violation of the prohibition under Art. I § 1, 5 & 9 VA Const. by changing VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1998) to retroactively “conform the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017)] for the disciplining of attorneys” to the unconstitutional Supreme Court of Virginia Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 issued in 1998;

        Second, in 2017 the General Assembly enacted outside the ‘the sphere of legitimate legislative activity” retroactive chang to the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system in the Commonwealth established in 1932  under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1998), by usurping the exclusive power to amend the VA Const. of the citizens of Virginia under XII § 1 VA Const. and by violating the mandate of separation of power under Art. VI § 1, 5 & 7 VA Const.,  to delegate legislative authority given only to them by the citizens of Virginia by adopting the unconstitutional Court Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6, issued in 1998 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),^[3] to obfuscate the Court’s unlawfully: (a) establishing a centralized statewide attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control; (b) establishing the VSBDB as a lower court with judicial authority to discipline attorneys; and, (c) appointing VSBDB members as judges; and,

       Third, the violation of the common law by the VSBDB, the VA AG and the Court’s self-proclaiming “impunity” and absolute immunity from accountability for the unconstitutional violations of Art. VI § 1, 5 & 7 VA Const. (See 2016 Petition to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) (P-926-16 IACHR Petition) (2017 United Nations Complaint to the  Committee on Human Rights, and Memorandum in Support of UN Complaint) (See also https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5 and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ, presentations to NOVA members of the General Assembly).

Isidoro Rodriguez

2671 Avenir Place, Apt 2227

Vienna, Virginia 22180

Mobile phone No. 571.477.5350

E-mail: busness@isidororodriguez.com

             [1] See Isidoro Rodriguez v. General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia et al., Fairfax Cir. Ct. CL-2018-0016227, 11/14/198, Declaratory Judgement Complaint, Plaintiff’s Exhibits A through M, and filed Motions.

               [2] See Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, Fairfax Cir. Ct. CL-2018-0016433, 11/19/198, Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                ^[3] In Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch 137, 140 (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court 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 that an entity that has neither constitutional authority, nor legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any order, said order is void ab initio as a complete nullity from its issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally 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).