Tag Archives: Accountability

MOTION TO EMPANEL A SPECIAL GRAND JURY FOR VIOLATION OF VA CODE §§ 18.2 481, 482 AND VA CODE § 18.2 499, FOR CLASS 2 FELONY TO “[RESIST] THE EXECUTION OF THE LAWS UNDER COLOR OF AUTHORITY”

14 Friday Dec 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
________________________________________________ Case No. CL-2018-0016227
Isidoro Rodriguez                                                   :
                                                                                   :
                                Plaintiff Pro per,                     :
                                                                                    :
                         vs.                                                      :
                                                                                     :
The General Assembly of the                                 :
Commonwealth of Virginia, et al.,                        :
                                                                                      :
Defendants.                                                                :
________________________________________________:

MOTION TO IMPANEL SPECIAL GRAND JURY

     Pursuant VA Code 19.2-191(2) ‘ 19.2-206(A)(I), and ‘ 19.2-211, as well as VA Code § 8.01-184, § 9.01-186, § 8.01-188, and VA Code § 18.2 500B, Plaintiff Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), moves the Circuit Court to impanel a Special Grand Jury, and provide appropriate specialized personnel to investigate and report on the allegations and evidence of a Class 2 felony in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2 481 & 482 and VA Code § 18.2 499, to “[resist] the execution of the laws under color of authority” by a business conspiracy to injure Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession, and property for litigating to enforce statutory rights. The evidence confirms the willful defiance of the limitation and prohibitions under Art. 1 §§ 5, 9, 11 & 15, Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7, and Art. XII § 1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (VA Const.) to circumvent the mandate of separation of power and the process to amend the VA Const.:

     (i) By the General Assembly of Virginia’s (“General Assembly”) violation of Art. I § 1, 5 & 9 VA Const. prohibitions on ex post facto legislation by changing the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system established since 1932 under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2009) (Plaintiff’s Ex. A), by enacting VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) (Plaintiff’s Ex. J) to unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to the Court to retroactively “[c]onform the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” instituted since 1932, by adopting in 2017 Supreme Court of Virginia (“Court”) Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 issued in 1998 (Plaintiff’s Exhibit C);

     (ii) By the General Assembly’s violation of Art. VI § 1, 5 & 7 and XII § 1 VA Const. amending process by adopting retroactively in 2017 Court Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 issued in 1998: (a) to establish a centralized statewide attorney disciplinary system; (b) to establish Defendant Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a lower court with judicial authority to discipline attorneys; and, (c) adopting the Court’s appointment of VSBDB members as judges; and,

     (iii) By the General Assembly, Court, VSBDB’s violation of the right to due process under Art. I § 11 & 15 VA Const. and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine,

     Under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. the citizens of Virginia reserved to themselves the power to amend the separation of power under Art. VI § 1, 5 & 7 VA Const. between the Legislative and Judicial Branch. Thus, consistent with the original constitutional draftsmen open distrust of the motive of individuals in government generally, and the Court specifically, the citizens of Virginia gave power only the General Assembly to enact legislation to give judicial authority, to establish “courts,” and to appoint “judges.” This constitutional power cannot be delegated to the Court. Furthermore, the citizens of Virginia ratified Art. VI § 5 VA Const., to prohibit the Court from issuing rules either inconsistent with VA Code §§ 54-1-3935(A) (1932 to 2009) (Plaintiff’s Exhibit A) or to exceed the scope of the authority delegated by the General Assembly, VA Code §§ 54-1-3915 (1950-1988) (the Court cannot legislate).

     VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) (Plaintiff’s Ex. J) cannot be circumvent the above restrictions on the Court’s power by retroactively adopting in 2017 the 1998 Court’s unconstitutional rules creating a centralized attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control, creating the VSBDB as a lower court, and appointing VSBDB members as judges. See, e.g., Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 34 Va. App. 273, 276, 540 S.E.2d 521, 522 (2001) (legislative enactment which delegates to authority to adopt rules does not permit adoption of inconsistent and illegal rules or regulations).

CONCLUSION

    Because VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) (Plaintiff’s Ex. J1, J2, J3) retroactively adopted Court rules issued in 1998 to “[resist] the execution of the laws under color of authority” by an ex-post facto delegation of legislative authority in violation of constitutional restrictions it is unconstitutional and void.

     The Circuit Court must impanel a Special Grand Jury to investigate: first, the violations of Art. I § 5 & 9, Art. VI, §§ 1, 5, & 7, and Art. XII § 1 VA Const., as well as VA Code §§ 54.1 3915 & 3935 (1950), to resist “the execution of the laws under color of authority” VA Code §§ 18.2 481 & 482; and, second, the business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2 499 & 500.

Respectfully submitted,
Isidoro Rodríguez
Residence: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227
Vienna, Virginia 22180
(571) 477-5350/E-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com

NOTICE OF FILING OF A COMPLAINT FOR THE RETROACTIVE ADOPTION IN 2017 OF SUP. CT VA UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES PROMULGATED IN 1998

20 Tuesday Nov 2018

Posted by in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, DEnial of right to civil trial by jury, Fairfax County Criminal Complaint for misprison of felony to violate VA Const and VA Code

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

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 on November 14 and 19, 2018.  Respectively a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment[1] and Petition for Writ of Mandamus[2] were filed under the Common Law and VA Code for acts outside scope of employment of government attorneys, for acts outside the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, and for acts outside of judicial authority 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 business conspiracy, evidenced by the:

  • General Assembly’s collusion 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. of ex-post facto legislation in 2017 to retroactively “conform the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017)] for the disciplining of attorneys”  to the 1998 unconstitutional Supreme Court of Virginia Rule Part 6, § § IV, 13-6;
  • General Assembly’s collusion outside the ‘the sphere of legitimate legislative activity” supra., by violating the citizens’ exclusive power to amend the VA Const. under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. and by violating the citizens’ the mandate of separation of power under Art. VI § 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., to retroactively change the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system that was established in 1932 in the Commonwealth under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1998), by unlawfully delegating legislative authority given by the citizens of Virginia by adopting in 2017 unconstitutional Court Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6, issued 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] thereby obfuscating the Court’s unlawful rules: (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,
  • the VSBDB, the VA AG and the Court’s from 2003 to the present self-proclaiming  “impunity” 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 presentations to NOVA members of the General Assembly, https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5 and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ,).

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, Complaint for Declaratory Judgement, 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).