GOOD MORNING, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.

            I AM ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ.  THE BENCHMARK FOR ARGUING FOR GRANTING OF THE WRIT WAS SET FOR ME IN 1964 MORE THAN 55 YEARS AGO WHEN I TOOK THE OATH TO JOIN THE U.S. MILITARY.  THE OATH NEVER ENDED TO DEFEND OUR REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AGAINST BOTH “FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES.”

            THUS I AM SEEKING REVERSAL AND REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THIS DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT ACTION FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE VA CONST. AND VA CODE, AS WELL AS THE VIOLATION OF THE COMMON LAW EXCEPTION TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BY A TRIAL BY JURY FOR ACTS OUTSIDE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE’S PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF RES JUDICATABECAUSE OF RESPONDENTS UNLAWFUL ACTS IN DEFIANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ARE VOID AB INITIO PER MARBURY V. MADISON AND VIRGINIA CASE LAW PRECEDENT.

            RESPONDENTS’ HAVE ADMITTED:

            FIRST, TO INTERPRETING VA CODE §§ 54.3909 & 54.1 3910 (2017) AS THE BASES FOR ESTABLISHING THE VSBDB AS A “PARALLEL” CENTRALIZED ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY THIS BY DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF THE LIMITATION AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE MANDATES OF SEPARATION OF POWER AND DUE PROCESS OF ART. I §§ 5 & 9, ART. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA CONST, & ART. XII VA CONST.; AND,

SECOND, THAT THE VSBDB IS NEITHER  A “COURT” NOR ITS MEMBERS “JUDGES” IN “CONFLICT” WITH THE REQUIEMENTS OF VA CODE §§ 54.3915 & 54.1 3935 (1932-2009). , AND THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE

          THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF RESPONDENTS’ OWN ADMISSIONS OF CULPABILITY IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMIND THE COURT:

• THAT THE ACT OF 1932 ESTABLISHED A DECENTRALIZED COURT BASED ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM WITH “COURT” HAVING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION PER VA CODE §§ 54.3915 & 54.1 3935 (1932-2009);
• THAT ART. VI § 1 RESTRICTS THE POWER TO GRANT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND CREAT COURTS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY[i];

• THAT ART. VI § 5 PROHIBIT THE COURT FROM PROMULGATING RULES IN “CONFLICT” WITH VA CODE;[ii]
• THAT ART. VI § 7 RESTRICTS ON THE POWER TO APPOINT JUDGES TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY;[iii]
• THAT UNDER ART. XII §1 VA CONST., ONLY THE CITIZENS OF VIRGINIA, CAN AMEND THE VA CONST’S SEPARATION OF POWER AND THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER ART. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA CONST.  

            DESPITE THESE CLEAR VIOLATIONS VA CONST. AND VA CODE PROHIBITIONS, THE CIRCUIT COURT GRANTED PROTECTION TO RESPONDENTS FROM ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTS OUTSIDE OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, JUDIICAL AUTHORITY, AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT LEGAL AUTHORITY BASED ON VARIOUS GROUND BUT ESSENTIALLY BY ABUSING THE DOCTRINES OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND RES JUDICATA.

      BUT LOGICALLY AND LEGALLY NONE OF THESE GROUNDS CAN EXTEND “IMPUNITY” TO RESPONDENTS FOR THEIR ADMITTED WILLFUL ACTIONS VIOLATING THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE VA CONSTITUTIONS REPUBLICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  THERE CAN BE NO GRANT OF “IMPUNITY” FROM CHALLENGES BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION OF THE VA CONSTITUTIONS BECAUSE NEITHER A VA STATUTE NOR COURT RULE CAN SUPERSEDE THE LIMITATION AND PROHIBITION UNDER THE VA CONSTITUTION.

           THIS IS BECAUSE ANY OTHER RULE OF LAW WOULD MAKE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SUBSERVIENT TO RESPONDENTS WILLFUL UNLAWFUL ACTS. SEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KUHNLEIN, 646 SO.2D 717 AT 721 (FLORIDA SUPREME COURT 1994),

            THEREFORE, THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN ITS SYSTEMATIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND IMPARTIAL COMMON LAW JURY TRIAL TO SECURE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESPONDENT VSBDB 2006 VOID AB INITIO ORDER (PLAINITT’S EX D) AIDING ERIC HOLDER ET AL.’S COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY BUSINESS CONSPIRACY VA CODE 18.2-499 & 500 TO DAMAGE MY BUSINESS, REPUTATION, PROFESSION, AND STATUTORY PROPERTY RIGHTS.

            THIS SYSTEMIC DENIAL IS ADDITIONALLY CONFIRMED BY THE EVIDENCE THAT RATHER THAN TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION AS REQUESTED FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST., AND VA CODE, FROM 2003 TO 2018 THE RESPONDENT OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, RESPONDENT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, AND RESPONDENT GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PARTICIPATED IN THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY:

             FIRST, VIOLATING OF ART. XII § 1 VA CONST., BY ENACTING AND SIGNING ON JANUARY 9, 2017, VA CODE § 54.1 3935 (2017) TO EX POST FACTO RETROACTIVELY “CONFORM THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCIPLINING OF ATTORNEYS” TO 1998 COURT RULES THAT “CONFLICT” WITH ART. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA CONST. AND VA CODE §§ 54.3915 & 54.1 3935 (1932-2009); AND,

            SECOND, VIOLATING ART. IV §14 ¶4(18), BY MY REPRESENTATIVE DELEGATE MARCUS SIMON (HOUSE DISTRICT 53), ON JANUARY 9, 2019 INTRODUCING HOUSE BILL NO 2111 AS SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO GIVE IMMUNITY TO RESPONDENTS FROM CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY.

THIS EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT RESPONDENTS’ COMPOUNDED THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY A CLASS 2 & 6 FELONY TO “RESIST THE EXECUTION OF THE LAWS UNDER COLOR OF AUTHORITY.” (VA CODE §§ 18.2‑481 AND 482).

            FOR THESE REASONS THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED:

            FIRST, BY VIOLATING THE COMMON LAW EXCEPTION TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR RESPONDENTS ACTS OUTSIDE THE SPHERE OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, SCOPE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT BY THEIR DEFIANCE OF ART. I §§ 5 & 9, ART. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7, ART. XII § 1 VA CONST., BY THE ENACTMENT OF VA CODE § 54.1‑3935 (2017) TO RETROACTIVELY EX POST FACTO 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.

            SECOND, BY NOT IMPANELLING 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.

            THIRD, BY VIOLATING THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE BY USE OF RES JUDICATA.

            FOURTH, BY GRANTING RESPONDENT’S DEMURE BASED ON A MISNOMER, LACK OF STANDING AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.

            FIFTH, BY HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT GENERAL ASSEMBLY AS AN ART. III AND VI VA CONST. ENTITY IT CANNOT BE SERVED UNDER COURT-ORDERED PUBLICATION VA CODE §§ 8.01-316(B) & 318.

           REGARDING THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS I RESPECTFULLY REMIND THE COURT THAT PATRICK HENRY, WHO WROTE,

“[P]OWER 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)

            IN THAT CONTEXT THE WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENTS’ CONCERTED UNLAWFUL ACTS TO DENY CITIZENS OF VIRGINIA ACCESS TO AN INDEPENDENT LEGAL PROFESSION WILLING AND ABLE TO LITIGATE AGAINST STATE ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VA CONST. MANDATES OF SEPARATION OF POWER AND DUE PROCESS.

            I CLOSE AND MOVE FOR THE EMPANELING OF A GRAND JURY, AND FOR AN INJUNCTION OF VA CODE § 54.1‑3935 (2017).  I ALSO MOVE FOR THE LIFTING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT’S INJUNCTION TO PERMIT THE THE FILING OF AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES BEFORE A COMMON LAW JURY BASED ON THE 2006 VSBDB VOID AB INITIO ORDER.

SUBMITTED BY ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ

      [i] Article VI, § 1. Judicial power; jurisdiction. — The judicial power of the Commonwealth 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.

            [ii] 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)

[iii] 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 . . ..