The petition is filed based upon Undersigned Attorney’s prevailing argument before the United States Supreme Court in Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (remand for an evidentiary hearing before a jury for employee accountability for acts outside of the “scope of employment” not within the Federal Torts Claim Act). Thus, the Petition is for Congressional Oversight Investigation of the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and civil jury trial of misprision of a felony by acts outside of the scope of employment, jurisdiction, and/or judicial authority of Federal/Virginia government employees/attorneys in the U.S. Department of Justice/Internal Revenue Service, Office of Attorney General of Virginia, in complicity with Federal/Virginia jurists (Eric Holder et al.).
The indisputable evidence is that Eric Holder et al. violated 18 U.S. §§ 4, 241 & 242, Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1) and (7), and VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482: first, by illegally using unlawfully promulgated court rules issued in violation of the prohibitions of Article VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 of the Constitution of Virginia and VA Code §§ 54-1-3915 & 3935; and, second, self-proclaiming “impunity” and absolute immunity from accountability for depriving the Undersigned Attorney of Due Process in defiance of the 5th, 7th & 14th Amendments and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.
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)].
The petition for oversight investigation is supported by the following evidence:
First, Eric Holder et al. committed a Class I Felony and a Misdemeanor business conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S. §§ 241& 242, and VA Code §§ 18.2.499 & 500, to retaliate against the Undersigned Attorney’s litigation against the unauthorized policies of Eric Holder during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations. Thus, Undersigned Attorney’s law office, profession, reputation, property, and fundamental right to employment as a pro hac vice litigator, has been destroyed by Eric Holder et al. filing two unlawful and fraudulent Virginia State Bar complaints (See http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf) against the Undersigned Attorney for litigating to enforce (a) his statutory property right under VA Code in a choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on treasure trove confirmed valued at $18 Billion USD; and, (b) his Treaty/VA Code rights as a father to protect his Son under the “zone of war” exception (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).
Second, Eric Holder et al. committed Class II Felonies by “resist[ing] the execution of the laws under color of authority” in violation of 18 U.S. §§ 4, 241 & 242, and VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482. In sum, in response to Undersigned Attorney’s opposing legal arguments and evidence of the use of illegal court rules Eric Holder et al. repeated allowed the Virginia Supreme Court to violate the prohibitions on the Court under Art. VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the VA Const. and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 3935: (i) to illegally create under its control a centralized attorney discipline system—in violation of the Virginia General Assembly’s decentralized attorney disciplinary system under the control of each county circuit court; (ii) to illegally create under its control the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a lower “court;” and, (iii) to illegally appoint VSBDB members as “judges” with jurisdiction/judicial authority to discipline attorneys.
The evidence of the above is confirmed upon reading and analyzing the Unpublished Void Ab Initio Orders of 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 which systematically denied access to an impartial court and a trial by jury by: (i) summarily dismissing Undersign Attorney’s RICO Complaint based upon granting “impunity” to Eric Holder et al. for acts outside of jurisdiction and judicial authority; (ii) denying motions for a jury trial under the 7th Amend.; (iii) enjoining/prior restraining the filing of future Federal suits for the use of illegal court rules; and, (iv) proclaiming “impunity”/absolute immunity for the unlawful disbarring of the Undersigned Attorney from Federal practice based upon the void ab initio order of the VSBDB by void ab initio orders of the 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. These jurists acted outside of their jurisdiction and judicial authority to violate the Undersigned Attorney’s “substantive right” to due process by obfuscating Eric Holder et al.’s violations of the prohibitions under Art. VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the VA Const., and VA Code § 54-1-3915 & 54.1‑3935 (see also Rules Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. § 2072(a) by abusing the judicially created doctrines of stare decisis/res judicata so to not comply with the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine
This denial of Due Process (http://www.isidororodriguez.com), has been compounded by the refusals of Democrat Senators/former VA Governors Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine, Congressman Gerry Connelly, former VA Governor Terry McAuliffe, VA Governor Ralph S. Northam (https://www.change.org/p/u-s-house-of-representatives-holding-government-attorneys-and-employees-including-judges-accountable), VA Senator Richard L. Saslaw, and the other NOVA members of the General Assembly to investigate the evidence of misprision of a felony and malfeasance (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ).
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.” Thus, Oversight Investigation is mandated to secure access to an impartial court and a jury trial of the Void Ab Initio Orders and the self-proclaimed impunity and absolute immunity for violation of 5th, 7th, & 14th Amend, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Art. VI of the Constitution of Virginia and VA Code §§ 18.2‑499/500, and §§ 18.2‑481/482.
Isidoro Rodríguez, Residence: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227, Vienna, Virginia 22180; (571) 477-5350/E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of Felony–Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both.
 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.
 Pursuant to Article VI, § 1. Judicial power; jurisdiction, the power to create courts and jurisdiction subordinate to the Supreme Court of Virginia lies only with “the VA General Assembly [as it] may from time to time establish.” Thus, the Supreme Court of Virginia is prohibited from establishing the VSBDB as a court.
 Pursuant to Article VI, § 5, the Supreme Court of Virginia is prohibited from making rules, “in conflict with the general law” enacted by the VA General Assembly. (Emphasis added).
 Pursuant to Article VI, § 7, justices of “all other courts of record shall be chosen by . . . the VA General Assembly. . ..” Thus, the Supreme Court of Virginia is prohibited from appointing VSBDB members as judges.
 Pursuant to VA Code § 54.1‑3915, the Supreme Court of Virginia is prohibited for issuing 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….
 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).
 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.. . .
 These 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 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 a Bill of Attainder prohibited by the U.S. Constitution); 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).
 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 litigating “claims that would be too unpopular for resident lawyers to bring.” (Emphasis added)
 The VA General Assembly enacted VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 3935 establishing a decentralized attorney disciplinary system pursuant to its exclusive powers under Art. VI, §§ 1, 5, & 7 of the VA Const. Art. VI § 5 of the VA Const., and VA Code § 54-1-3915 mandated obedience to the decentralized attorney disciplinary system by restricting the delegation of rulemaking authority to the Supreme Court of Virginia under VA Code § 54.1‑3909, i.e. the Court was denied authority to issue rules inconsistent with rights under either VA Const. and/or VA Code, and limited to the investigation by Virginia State Bar the only upon the request of the courts of appeals/circuit courts.
 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)(In violation of 18 U.S. §§ 241& 242, the Federal jurists refused to compel the Supreme Court of Virginia to comply with the limitations and prohibitions on its power and authority pursuant to VA Const./VA Code. [Footnotes 6 thru 10]). 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 summarily dismissed action to hold the Judicial Branch accountability for issuing illegal court rules violating the VA Const./VA Code, by misprision of a felony to hold them absolutely immune.
 Based on the complicity of jurists to declare “impunity” for the denial of due process Undersigned Attorneys has filed Petitions with the Governor of Virginia, the General Assembly of Virginia, the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (OAS) (P-926-16) (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/).