MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION OF VA CODE § 54.1 3935 (2017) AND VA CODE § 8.01-223.2 (2017), ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ V. VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD, SCOTUS DOCKET NO. 20-25

Featured

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Violation of the Doctrine of Federalism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Accountability, separation of power

PURPOSE

Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) files this Motion to enforce the federal interest under Art. Four, § 4, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution to guarantee a “Republican Form of Government” by ensuring that “justice is applied fairly” to all Citizens by the Government of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia”) by enjoining legislation violating the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const.

Thus, the position of the parties on the disposition of the Motion is unchanged since it seeks on behalf of the Citizens of Virginia compliance by equitable relief with the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., because,

“Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy,” Olmsted v. United States, 277 US 438, 451 (1928).

FACTS

In response to Rodriguez’s petitions for grievances (See http://t.co/slv7pz3zd5), in 2017, legislation was enacted to ex post facto amend VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950 to 2017) in violation Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., and Art. XII § 1 of the VA Const., to adopt retroactively the 1998 unconstitutional court rules establishing the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court” and appointing VSBDB members as judges (VA Code § 54.1-3935 (2017)), and, second, legislation was enacted in violation of Act. IV § 14, &3(18) VA Const. as special legislation (VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) and 2019 HB 2111) to grant immunity to the VSBDB as a private association for a business conspiracy.

Thus, this Motion for prospective relief on behalf of all Citizens of Virginia that is distinct from Rodriguez’s underlying petition now before the Court for remand of the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition to obtain impartial judicial review by a Virginia court of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s (“VSBDB”) for issuing in 2006 a Void Ab Initio Order disbarring Rodriguez for litigating to enforce statutory rights by the usurping of judicial authority as a “kangaroo court.”

LEGAL ARGUMENT

To enjoin future “resist[ance] to the execution of the laws under color of authority” by the use of VA Code § 54.1-3935(2017) and VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017), the nondispositive prospective Motion seeks equitable relief under the common law[1] and under VA Code §§ 8.01-184 et seq.

The facts confirm there has been the enactment of legislation by the three branches of the Government of Virginia in violation of the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const., and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const. These amended provisions of Virginia’s Code have been unlawfully enacted to effect in 2017 a retroactive change of the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system established since 1932 under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2009), by passing VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017) to “[c]onform the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” by adopting in 2017 Supreme Court of Virginia Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 issued in 1998 to delegate the General Assembly’s legislative authority unconstitutionally: (a) to retroactivley adopt the Supreme Court of Virginia establishment of a centralized statewide attorney disciplinary system; (b) to retroactivley adopt the Supreme Court of Virginia establishment of the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” with judicial power to discipline attorneys; and, (c) to retroactivley adopt the Supreme Court of Virginia appointment of VSBDB members as “judges.

However, under Art. VI §§ 1 & 7 VA Const., the judicial power to revoke a license to practice law is governed by statute, not court rules. Ex Parte Fisher, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835) 624-25 (1835). See In re Johathan A. Moseley, Sup Ct. VA No 061237 (2007). Thus, in response to the holding in Legal Club of Lynchburg v. AH Light, 137 Va. 249 at 250, 119 SE 55 (1923), citing Fisher‘s Case, supra. (See Footnote 2), the General Assembly enacted in 1932 the Acts of Assembly p. 139 to establish a decentralized statewide attorney disciplinary system to give statewide effect to a lower court’s discipline of an attorney. To this end, the General Assembly only delegated judicial authority to each County circuit court to discipline attorneys. See When Has the Supreme Court of Appeals Original Jurisdiction of Disbarment Proceedings, RHC. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jan. 1924), pp. 246-248; and David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954). Only after the issuance of a rule against an attorney, filed with the county clerk’s office of the county court having jurisdiction. See Campbell v. Third District Committee of Virginia State Bar, 179 Va. 244, 18 S.B.2d 883 (1942).

The citizens ratified Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. granting power only to the General Assembly to enact legislation to give judicial authority, to create “court” and appoint “judges.” Under the amending procedure of Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., only the Citizens of Virginia can amend the Constitution of Virginia to modify their gridwork of separation of power between the three branches of the Government of Virginia.

Consequently, based on the logic under the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, the unlawful enactment of VA Code § 54.1-3935(2017) and VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) demands that these sections be enjoined complete nullity from their 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).

The US Supreme Court decision in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), established the benchmark on the right of Rodriguez to challenge the VSBDB void ab initio order, by holding,

Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the validity of such judgments may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that Court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law. . . . To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution‑‑that is, by the law of its creation‑‑to pass upon the subject‑matter of the suit.” (Emphasis added).

A. IRREPARABLE HARM

Consistent with the doctrine of separation of power, the citizens ratified Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. and granted power only to the General Assembly: (1) to enact legislation giving judicial authority; (2) to enact legislation to create lower and appellate courts to the Supreme Court of Virginia; and (3) to appoint “judges.”

QUERY, UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE VA CONST. WAS ENACTED THE RETROACTIVE 2017 VA SECTIONS TO ADOPT COURT RULES GIVING JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO THE VSBDB AS A LOWER COURT AND MAKING VSBDB MEMBERS AS JUDGES?

The obvious answer is that there has been a willful violation of the separation of power under Art. I § 5, Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 54.1‑3935 (2009) to conceal the VSBDB was acting as a “kangaroo court” and issuing Void Ab Initio Order.[2]

Therefore, Rodriguez has a “legal interest” that has been irreparably harmed by the business conspiracy damaging his law business, reputation, profession, and property rights, and the injunction is mandated. See Radin v. Crestar Bank, 249 Va. 440, 442, 457 S.E.2d 65, 66 (1995). This evidence must be viewed as true to establish ongoing irreparable harm. See Virginia Marine Res. Comm’n v. Clark, 281 Va. 679, 686-87, 709 S.E.2d. 150, 154-55 (2011).

B. INADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW

Based on the record of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by jury,[3] to secure compliance with the limitations and prohibitions under the Constitution of Virginia, there is no amount of monetary relief at law or legal remedy is appropriate or available that will compensate the Citizens for the unlawful enactments in 2017.

C. ADVERSE IMPACT ON DEFENDANT

The damage to the Citizens of the Commonwealth is evident. Any potential harm from the injunction to compel the compliance with the amending procedure of Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto legislation under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const., and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., is nonexistent.

D. LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS

The Citizens placed under Art. I § 5 VA Const. and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., the power exclusively with the General Assembly to enact legislation to give judicial authority, to create courts, and to appoint judges. This constitutional power granted by the Citizens of Virginia may not be delegated. When the General Assembly does delegate authority to promulgate rules, the rules must neither exceed the scope of the authority delegated nor be inconsistent with it (Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 34 Va. App. 273, 276, 540 S.E.2d 521, 522 (2001). Also, the “[d]elegations of legislative power which lack such policies and standards are unconstitutional and void.” Ames v. Town of Painter, 239 Va. 343, 349, 389 S.E.2d 702, 705 (1990) (Emphasis added).

Under the common law, there is no absolute immunity for acts outside legal authority, and this includes legislators that engage in acts outside ‘the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,” Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 US 367 at 376 (1951), and judges acting without judicial authority 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). Under the common law, these issues require a jury trial.^[4]

Rodriguez’s Motion for a preliminary/permanent injunction is to enjoin prospectively the enactment of unlawful legislation to prevent the “the execution of the laws under color of authority” Injunctive relief is appropriate when the Court is “satisfied of the plaintiff’s equity” based on the record of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court and statutory/Common law jury trial.

Rodriguez has demonstrated “irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law,” Levisa Coal Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 276 Va. 44, 46 (2008), based upon the violation of VA Code §§ 18.2.499 and 500B & VA Code § 8.01-628.

The Court “will give due weight to the adverse effect of the injunction being granted on the defendant.” supra. Also, the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim is to be considered in deciding to award an injunction. Wings, LLC v. Capitol Leather, LLC, 88 Va. Cir. 83, 89 (Fairfax Co., 2014). Finally, irreparable harm does not mean that there be no “possibility of repairing the injury. All that is meant is that the injury would be a grievous one, or at least a material one, and not adequately reparable in damages.” Callaway v. Webster, 98 Va. 790 (1990).

All the above factors strongly support Rodriguez’s complaint and arguments to enjoin VSBDB void ab initio order.[5]

CONCLUSION

This Motion is filed under the common law because of the enactment of unlawful legislation that has violated VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & 54.1‑3935 (2009), and there has been a systemic denial of access to an impartial court to compel compliance with the above-cited provisions of the Constitution of Virginia. For the above reasons, Rodriguez respectfully requests that this Court grant the Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Isidoro Rodríguez

Isidoro Rodríguez

Residence: 2671 Avenir Place, Apt. 2227

Vienna, Virginia 22180

(571) 477-5350/E-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com

[1]VA Code § 1-200, states “The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly. VA. Code § 1-10; 2005.

[2]The Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, mandates that when an entity such as the VSBDB has neither constitutional authority, nor statutory authority, not legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any act or order, said act or order is void ab initio—because they are a complete nullity from their issuance, and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, 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); and Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352 (1803).

[3]As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by men, by which the government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” (Emphasis added)

[4]See Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (Rodriguez argued and won before the United States Supreme Court to reverse the USCA for the 4^th Circuit, to order a common law evidentiary hearing before a jury for acts outside the scope of employment. In Fox v. Deese, 234 Va. 412, 423-24 (1987). The court held “Resolution of these allegations requires an evidentiary hearing. The defendants are not immune if the evidence establishes that (1) they committed intentional torts, irrespective of whether they acted within or without the scope of their employment, Elder v. Holland, 208 Va. 15, 19, 155 S.E.2d 369, 372_73 (1967), or (2) they acted outside the scope of their employment, see Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 311, 321 S.E.2d 657, 662 (1984).”

[5]In 2017 the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine was compounded by the passage of an unconstitutional ex post facto change to the decentralize statewide attorney disciplinary system established since 1932 under VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2009), to retroactively “[c]onform the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” by adopting the Supreme Court of Virginia’s unconstitutional Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6. See VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017).

Filed July 13, 2020–IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, on Petition for A Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Featured

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, DEnial of right to civil trial by jury, Impunity in violation of the Common Law, Uncategorized, Violation of the Doctrine of Federalism

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

separation of power, systemic denial of access to impartial court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

I. Whether the 1st, 5th, 7th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution (“U.S. Const.”), the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and the integrity and independence of the Commonwealth’s judicial system under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const), and VA Code § 54.1-3915 & § 54.1-3935A (1950 to 2017), has been violated by the denial of the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition
confirming the pattern and practice since 2006:

First, of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court so to not hold the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s (“VSBDB”) accountable for usurping judicial authority and jurisdiction to disbar Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine?;

Second, of the systemic denial of access to a statutory jury trial under VA Code § 18.2-499 & 500 so to not hold the VSBDB accountable for participating, cooperating and assisting the business conspiracy of Washington D.C. Attorneys/Lobbyist Eric Holder et al. to injure Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez reputation and profession by the issuance of a void ab initio order?; and,

Third, of the systemic denial of access to a common-law jury trial so to not hold the VSBDB et al. accountable for malfeasance for the void ab initio order, as well as for lobbying to violate VA Const.’s amending procedures, to violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws, and to violate the prohibition on enacting special legislation granting the VSBDB immunity for a business conspiracy?

LIST OF ALL DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS WHICH HAVE SYSTEMICALLY DENIED ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT TO RECIPROCALLY ENFORCE THE VSBDB VOID AD INITIO ORDER..

1. Isidoro Rodriguez v. General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., S. Ct. VA No. 190579 (September 2, 2019); Fairfax County Circuit Court Case No. 2018-16227 (February 12, 2019).

2. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., US Dist. Ct. ED VA 12-cv-663-JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013), cert. denied 2014.

3. In the matter of Isidoro Rodriguez, US Sup. Ct. Docket No. D-02466 (May 26, 2010), cert. denied.

4. Isidoro and Irene Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 10691-09, cert. denied; and, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 11855-12, cert. denied 2014.

5. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jack Harbeston, and Eric Holder et al., US Dist. Ct. WD Wash. No. 11-cv-1601 (JCC).

6. Irene Rodriguez and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Douglas Shulman, et al., D.C. Cir. Ct. No. 11-cv-1183(JEB).

7. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, ML No. 2307 (December 14, 2011).

8. Isidoro Rodriguez v. US Tax Court, D.C. Cir. No. 10-1016, cert. denied, US Sup. Ct. No. 10-1066 (Closed, March 21, 2011).

9. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia Employment Commission, US Sup Ct. Docket No. 09-954 (Cert. Denied March 19, 2010), S. Ct. VA Record No. 092494, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0291-09-4.

10. Isidoro Rodriguez v. US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, (D.C. Cir. No. 08-7134) cert. denied No. 09-237 (November 2, 2009).

11. In the matter of Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., (4th Cir. No. 06-9518), cert. denied No. 08-942 (March 20, 2009), injunction denied (March 24, 2009).

12. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Standing Committee on Attorney Discipline, (3rd Cir. No 08-8037), cert. denied No. 08-1121 (Closed, May 18, 2009).

13. Isidoro Rodriguez v. US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, (2nd Cir. No 08-90089); cert. denied No. 08-942 (Closed, July 31, 2009).

14. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct. 08-411(Closed, 2008).

15. In re Isidoro Rodriguez, U.S. Dist. Ct. for the E. D. VA, Docket No. 1:08-mc-00022, May 28, 2008.

16. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al., (S. Ct. No. 07-419, November 2, 2007); and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia, (Va. Sup. Ct No. 07-0283), cert denied Nos. 07-A142 and 07A370 (2007).

17. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Devis and VA State Bar, VA Sup Ct. No. 06052, cert. denied US Sup Ct. Nos. 06A619/06-875 (Closed, October 2006).

18. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Pereira, 163 F. Appx. 227 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 954 (2006).

19. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Guy Vander Jagt, et al., Sup. Ct. of Va. No 040941/040942, cert. denied, No. 04-867 (Feb. 28, 2005).

20. Isidoro Rodriguez v. HFP Inc., et al., 77 F. Appx. 663 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 903 (2004).

21. Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children et al., D.C. No. 03-120(RWR); D.C. Cir. No. 03-5092, cert. denied USSC No. 03-301 (2006).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

a. When Federal Question Raised.

Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) raised the federal questions in the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and its amendment at page 1 thru 15, filed on November 28, 2018, and on February 19, 2019 with the Fairfax Ct. Cir. Ct. They were raised again in the Petition for Appeal to the S. Ct. VA on August 28, 2019, and during oral argument on February 21, 2020. The courts below never addressed the challenge to the systemic denial of access to an impartial court, as well as the denial of the right to due process and equal protection of the laws in violation of the Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

b. Material Facts.

In 2003 Washington, D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder and Washington, D.C. Lobbyist Jack Harbeston (“Holder et al.”) violated VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23) by entering Virginia to “combine, associate, agree, and mutually” did file two VSBDB bar complaints to injure Rodriguez’s federal civil litigation practice, reputation, profession, right to employment and statutory property rights.

The two bar complaints state they were filed:

First, for Rodriguez litigating to enforce a statutory Choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on treasure trove under VA Code § 54.1-3932 (1950) (App-10). See Isidoro Rodriguez v. HFP Inc., et al., 77 F. Appx. 663 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 903 (2004); Isidoro Rodriguez v. Guy Vander Jagt, et al., Sup. Ct. of Va. No 040941/040942, cert. denied, No. 04-867 (Feb. 28, 2005); Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995); Cooperativa Multiactiva de Empeados de Distribuidores de Drogas (Coopservir Ltda.) v. Newcomb, et al., D.C. Cir. No 99-5190, S Ct. No 99-1893 (2000); Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145 (1996) Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997); and,

Second, for Rodriguez litigating to enforce the rights of a father under Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Oct. 1980, T.I.A.A. No 11,670, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (App-7 and App-17) (“Treaty”), VA Code, and Joint Custody Agreement to protect his US citizen Son from being forced from Virginia in 2002 to a “zone of war” in the Republic of Colombia (App-17), Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children et al, D.C. No. 03-120(RWR); D.C. Cir. No. 03-5092, cert. denied USSC No. 03-301 (2006).

At the outset, Rodriguez challenged the judicial authority and jurisdiction of the VSBDB (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml). In response, in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23) the VSBDB did “combine, associate, agree, and mutually” participated in the business conspiracy by issuing in 2006 a void ab initio order to injure Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights.

Subsequently, as part of the business conspiracy Rodriguez was disbarred from federal practice from 2006 to 2010 by the summary reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch 137, 140 (1803), by the Office of the Clerk the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, DC and Federal Circuit, the U.S. Dist. Court for the ED VA, and U.S. Tax Court (page I, ii, iii).

Also, as part of the business conspiracy in 2006 Rodriguez was deprived of his property by: (a) the Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Tax Court’s reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order to declare “frivolous” and then to strike Rodriguez’s litigation expenses-to thereby assess “taxes greater then allowed by law,” See Isidoro and Irene Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 10691-09, cert. denied; and, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, US Tax Court Docket No. 11855-12, cert. denied 2014; and, (b) by the Virginia Employment Commission reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order to deny Rodriguez unemployment compensation benefits.

Based on this additional evidence of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court to assist the business conspiracy and violation of the Void Ab Initio Order, Rodriguez filed litigation under VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23). Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jack Harbeston, and Eric Holder et al., US Dist. Ct. WD Wash. No. 11-cv-1601 (JCC) (2011). See Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct 08-411(Closed, 2008).

After the repeated summary dismissal’s refusing to stop the business conspiracy and the reciprocal enforcement of the VSBDB void ab initio order, Rodriguez in 2012 file under VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23), as well as under Bivens and RICO, see Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., US Dist. Ct. ED VA 12-cv-663-JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013), cert. denied 2014.

But there too, the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. did summarily dismissed to again deny access to an impartial court: (1) by not disqualifying himself because the Judge’s wife was a member of the Defendant VSBDB; (2) by granting absolute immunity, by granting summary dismissal, and by granting a nationwide Federal prefiling injunction of any future litigation for violation of the VA Const, VA Code; and, (3) by holding a lack of jurisdiction in Virginia to enforce VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 (App-23)– despite the evidence that Holder et al. entered Virginia to file the two fraudulent VSBDB bar complaints. See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. Devis and VA State Bar, VA Sup Ct. No. 06052, cert. denied US Sup Ct. Nos. 06A619/06-875 (Closed, October 2006); Isidoro Rodriguez v. Pereira, 163 F. Appx. 227 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 954 (2006).

Based on this additional evidence of the business conspiray and systemic denial of access to an impartial court, Rodriguez did petition for redress of the grievances prior to the opening each January from 2010 to 2019 of the General Assembly for the VSBDB violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine (See 2010 Petition to VA General Assembly).

After receiving no response to the petitions for grievances fo six years, Rodriguez filed on May 15, 2016, a Complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, No. P-926-16 / MC-367-16, for violation of the right to due process and equal protection of the laws under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the absolute grant of immunity to government attorneys and judges. (See also January 2017 United Nations Complaint).

In response to these complaints, the VSBDB et al. used the cronyism and political influence in the legal profession of Virginia to surreptitiously lobby the General Assembly after 2017: (a) in violation of the prohibition on ex post facto laws, to enact a retroactive amendment adopting the 1998 unconstitutional S. Ct. VA Court Rules Part 6, § IV, ¶13 creating the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” and permitting the S. Ct. VA to appoint VSBDB members as judges (App-26); and, (b) in violation of the prohibition under Art. IV § 14, ¶3(18) VA Const. (See VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) (App-22) to enact special legislation granting the VSBDB immunity for the business conspiracies (See VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) (App-22) (see also General Assembly 2019 HB 2111, introduced on January 5, 2019, four (4) days after Rodriguez petitioned the Fairfax County members of the General Assembly).

Based on this evidence, Rodriguez filed below the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition to compel the VSBDB to either explain under what it acts as a “court” or to enjoin it usurping judicial authority (Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, Fairfax County Circuit Court, Case No. CL 2018-16433). See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. General Assembly of the Virginia, et al., Fairfax County Circuit Court, Case No. CL 2018-16227).

In written and oral responses the VSBDB in obfuscated and failed to cite any authority under VA Const., or VA Code for their sitting as a “court” and acting as “judges.” But rather, the VSBDB obtusely assert in violation of the prohibitions under Art. VI § 5 VA Const. and VA Code § 54.1-3915 (1950 to present), that the delegation of rule making authority under VA Code § 54.1-3909 (1950) gave to the S. Ct. VA the power to issue court rules giving the VSBDB judicial authority and jurisdiction to create the VSBDB as a “court,” and to appoint VSBDB members as judges.

Furthermore, the VSBDB arrogantly defied the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by arguing that Rodriguez lacked standing to challenge the VSBDB 2006 Void Ad Initio Order. Without addressing this evidence of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court to violate the U.S. and VA Const., as well as VA Code, the Fairfax County Circuit Court issued a summary prefiling injunction order (App-2) and a summary dismissal order of the Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition (App-4) on June 28, 2019. The Petition for Appeal was refused by the S. Ct. VA on March 2, 2020 (App-1).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI

There has been repeated violation of the First, Fifth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, by Fairfax County Circuit Court’s systemic denial of access to an impartial court and trial by a jury: (1) so to not hold the VSBDB accountable for a void ab initio order usurping judicial power to assist Holder et al’s business conspiracy; (2) to not enjoin an ex post facto amendment (App-26); and, to not enjoin special legislation granting immunity (App-22).

I. THE SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT.

A. Violations of the 5th and 14th Amendment to US Const., and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the systemic denial of access to an impartial court.

The Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition Court is founded upon records (page i, ii, and iii) evidencing the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the systemic denial of access to an impartial court, the systemic denial to a statutory, and the systemic denial to a common law jury trial, so to not hold the VSBDB accountable for usurping of jurisdiction and judicial authority by the issuance in 2006 of the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order (App- 6) to further Holder et al.’ s business conspiracy.

This evidence of the willful violation of the limitations and prohibitions under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA., and VA Code VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950-2017), is confirmed by the VSBDB argument that under VA Code § 54.1-3909 (1950) delegation of rule making authority the S. Ct. VA had the power to issue rules establishing the VSBDB as a “court” and for the S. Ct VA to appoint VSBDB members as judges with jurisdiction to discipline an attorney.

Furthermore, VSBDB argument confirms the willful violation of the controlling 1923 precedent under Legal Club of Lynchburg v. A.H. Light, 137 VA 249, 430, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), citing Fisher’s Case, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835), that the power to either suspend or revoke an attorney’s license in all of Virginia, must be “conferred by statute,” although in a proper case a court does have inherent judicial power to suspend or annul the license of an attorney practicing only in that particular court. To repeat, for a court to have,

“[t]he power to go further and make suspension or revocation of license effective in all other court of the Commonwealth [this] must be conferred by statute.” (Emphases added).

Based on this holding the 1932 Acts of Assembly p. 139 (codified at VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950-2017)), was enacted to assist the judicial branch by establishing a decentralized attorney disciplinary system to give by statute the exclusive judicial authority and jurisdiction to discipline attorneys to the ninety-five (95) County Circuit Court and eleven (11) Court of Appeals (App-25). When Has the Supreme Court of Appeals Original Jurisdiction of Disbarment Proceedings, R.H.C. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jan. 1924), David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia, 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954) Furthermore, under Art. VI § 5 VA Const. (App-21), and VA Code § 54.1 3915 (2050) (App-24) the S. Ct. VA was specifically prohibited from promulgating any court rules inconsistent with this decentralized attorney disciplinary system.VA Code § 54.1-3934 (1950) Legislative History to 1998 amendment to VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1998) .

Under VA Code § 54.1-3935C (1950-2017) the Virginia State Bar and by extension the VSBDB, was established only as,

“an administrative agency of the [S. Ct. VA] for the purpose of investigating and reporting [to the Circuit Court] violations of rules and regulations adopted by the court under this article.”

Therefore, the evidence confirms that no statute was ever enacted prior to the 2017 ex post facto legislation that amended VA Code § 54.1-3935 (1950-2017) to retroactively adopt the unconstitutional S. Ct. Va rules creating the VSBDB and vesting it with judicial power and jurisdiction as a “court”.

Consequently, benchmark of this action and all the past litigation (pages i, ii, and iii), has been to enforce the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under English common law as helin The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (KB 1613) that was incorporated as a cornerstone of United States jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch 137, 140 (1803). There it was held that,

“[c]ourts are constituted by constitutional authority and they cannot act 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.” (Emphasis added)

This Court reconfirmed the Void Order Doctrine by holding that due process mandated that State court must assure the right of access to an impartial judicial branch based on the constitutional obligation on the courts to decide matters presented by litigants, because:

“With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821).

Regarding the mandate under the 5th and 14th Amendments, this Court held in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319, 325, 326 (1937), that the right to due process includes those fundamental liberties that are “implicit” in the concept of ordered liberty, such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed.” To this end,

“[t]he Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested State tribunal in both civil and criminal cases.” Marshal v. Jern Co, 446 US 238, 242 (1980).

Therefore to assure that nether a judge nor court are permitted to act outside of their jurisdiction and judicial authority the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine is incorporation into 5th & 14th Amendments guarantee due process by confirming that any State proceedings that is outside of constitutional or statutory judicial authority or jurisdiction is void ab initio and actionable.

The Court recognized that there is a requirement on both State and Federal court to have access to an impartial court to assure effective vindication of a separate and distinct right to seek judicial relief:

(a) for violation of the First Amendment’s Right to Petition Clause, California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 US 508, 513 (1972);

(b) for violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, Murray v. Giarratano, 492 US 1, 11 n.6 (1989) (plurality opinion); Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 US 305, 335 (1985); and,

In accordance withprecedents this Court’s holding in Christopher v. Harbury, 536 US 403, 412-418 (2002), that to assert a claim of denial of access to an impartial court the claim must be first made in an underlying cause of action, the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition was filed in the Fairfax County Circuit Court against the VSBDB:

(a) to obtain judicial review of the VSBDB usurping judicial power and jurisdiction in violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1-3915 & § 54.1-3935A (1950-2017), to assist Holder et al.’s business conspiracy by issuance of a Void Ab Initio Order;

b. to obtain judicial review of the violation of the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const.;

c. to obtain judicial review of the violation of the mandate of separation of power between the General Assembly, and the S. Ct. VA and the Executive Branch by the ex post facto amendment to retroactively expand the power of the S. Ct VA. by adopting of the 1998 unconstitutional court rules creating the VSBDB and appointing VSBDB members as judges; and,

d. to obtain judicial review of the violation of the prohibition on enacting special legislation to grant immunity to the VSBDB as a private association.

This mandate of assuring access to an impartial State court is an integral part of due process restriction on the Judicial Branch. As Patrick Henry observed in 1777,

Power 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).

Consequently, the right to due process, and the right to equal protection of the laws mandate that when an individual or entity has neither constitutional authority, nor statutory authority, nor inherent legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any order, said order is void ab initio, and is a complete nullity from its issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner and cannot be reciprocally enforced by any governmental entity or court by either stare decisis or res judicata. 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).

Therefore, because the VSBDB has neither constitutional authority, nor statutory authority, nor inherent legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any valid order disbarring Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights (App-9), the VSBDB 2006 void ab initio order is a complete nullity from its issuance it may be impeached directly or collaterally at any time or in any manner. In that context, the systemic denial of access to an impartial Virginia and Federal court (page i, ii, iii), is a violation of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. But the VSBDB void ab initio order issued as a “kangaroo court” was repeatedly reciprocal enforced by the abuse of the judicially created abstention doctrines of res judicata and stare decisis in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. See Daniels v. Thomas, 225 F.2d 795, 797 (10th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 932 (1956); See also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462, 486-487 (1983); and, Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (March 7, 2011).

The VSBDB has willfully defied the 5th and 14th Amend., and the prohibitions under the VA Const., and VA Code, to assist Holder et al.’s business conspiracy, which was compounded by unlawful acts by government attorneys in the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

This must be rejected by the Court, because as prophetically observed by Adam Smith,

“[w]hen the judicial is united to the executive power, it is scarce possible that justice should not frequently be sacrificed to what is vulgarly called politics. The persons entrusted with the great interests of the state may even without any corrupt views, sometimes imagine it necessary to sacrifice to those interests the rights of a private man. But upon the impartial administration of justice depends the liberty of every individual, the sense which he has of his own security.” The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. I., Of the Expense of Justice, pp 200.

B. Systemic denial of the right to a jury trial of the evidence of malfeasance.

The Fourteenth Amendment, mandates, “the duty of every State to provide, in the administration of justice, for the redress of private wrongs.” Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Humes, 115 US 512, 521 (1885).

To this end both the Seventh Amendment and Art. I § 11 VA Const. guarantee the right to a common-law trial for malfeasance. As early as The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (KB 1613), it was determined that the jury trial was one of the most important safeguards against arbitrary and oppressive governmental policies.

In this context, Thomas Jefferson observed in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789, that,

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by men, by which the government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.”

Later, In re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136 (1955) (Black, J.), the Court held,

“[O]ur system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. This Court has confirmed that all doubts should be resolved in favor of jury trials considering the strong federal policy favoring such trials and right under the Constitution. Simler v. Conner, 372 US 221, 83 S.Ct. 609, 9 L.Ed2d 691 (1967).

See also, Grafton Partners LP v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 36 Cal 4th 944, 116 P.3d 479 (2005) (court finding a violation of the right to a jury trial under California Constitution-similar to VA Const. Art. I Section 11).

This common law right to a trial by a jury of the evidence of wrongdoing by acts outside the scope of authority was also confirmed in the 1995 case argued and won by Rodriguez against Eric Holder et al,’s policy of granting absolute impunity to government employees and judges for acts for outside of legal authority. Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 US 417, 115 S.Ct. 2227, 132 L.Ed. 2d 375 (1995) (4th Cir USCA reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing before a jury to determine if the government employee acts DUI while having sex were within or outside the scope of employment).

The common law right to a trial by jury is augmented by the statutory right to a jury trial for a business conspiracy under VA Code §§ 499 & 500. The existence of a business conspiracy is a jury question of facts-not for the court. As explained in Commercial Business Systems v. BellSouth, 249 Va. 239 at 267-68 (1995), statutory conspiracy claim,

is a matter for determination by a jury. whether a conspiracy caused the alleged damaged ordinarily is a question for a jury. Ordinarily it is the function of a jury to determine whether and to what extent a plaintiff has been damaged. (Emphasis added)

The record below confirms the systemic denial of access to a trial by jury by the summary denial of motions filed under 7th Amendment U.S. Const., Art I § 11 VA Const., VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 and the common law, Rodriguez has been denied of his right due process and equal protection of the laws. Therefore, this Court must exercise its supervisory authority to assure access to an impartial jury trial to enforce the prohibitions and limitations under both VA Const., and VA Code.

As observed by Attorney General John Ashcroft,

“it is in the federal government’s interest to have effective and fair state courts, lest litigants turn to federal courts to resolve matters properly within state court responsibilities.” November 2, 2003, Department of Justice Evaluation of the State Judicial Institutes’s Effectiveness to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. (Emphasis added)

II. VIOLATION OF ART. XII § 1 AND ART. 1 § 9 VA CONST. BY THE EX POST FACTO AMENDMENT ADOPTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES.

A. Denial of the 1st Amend Right to Petition for Grievances.

Under Art. XII § 1 VA Const. only the Citizens of Virginia can amend the Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., to expand the power of the S. Ct VA. to permit the S. Ct. VA to create the VSBDB as a court and to appoint VSBDB as judges.

This legislative power granted by the Citizens to the General Assembly can neither be delegated nor modified without the Citizens ratifying an amendment to the VA Const.

Also, under Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 of the US Const. and Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., the VSBDB is prohibited from lobbying the General Assembly to enact an ex post facto law in 2017 to adopt the 1998 court rules to have retroactive effect.

In Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 138 (1816), Chief Justice John Marshall defined an ex post facto law, as

“one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.”

Therefore, an ex post facto law has an impact on past transactions. See Ex parte Garland, 71 US (4 Wall.) 333, 377 (1867); See also McCoy v. State Highway Department of South Carolina, 169 SE 174, 169 SC 436 (1954). In Calder v. Bull, 3 US ( 3 Dall.) 386, 390, 397 (1798), this court determined that the ex post facto clause only prohibited the passage of criminal or penal measures that had a retroactive effect. But, too this court held that attorney discipline proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and subject to the prohibition under the ex post facto clause, Ex parte Garland, 71 US (4 Wall.) 333, 381 (1867) (companion case to Ex parte Garland, supra.). In both decisions, the court confirmed that an attorney has certain procedural and substantive rights to ensure due process and equal protection of the laws. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 US (4 Wall.) 277 (1806); In Re Ruffalo, 390 US 544, 550-51, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117,121-23 (1968); see also Mississippi State Bar v. Young, 509 So. 2d 210, 212 (Miss. 1987); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 345 A.2d 616, 620 (Pa. 1975).

This right to due process is mandated because attorney discipline proceedings are highly penal character. However, in violation of the above VA Const. restrictions, and Rodriguez’s right under the First Amendment and Art. I VA Const. to petition for grievances (See 2009 Presentatoin to Fairfax County member of General Assembly ):

first, the VSBDB lobbied for the enacting in 2017 of the ex post facto amendment of VA Code § 54.1-3935A (1950 to 2017) (App-25) to retroactively adopt in violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., Art. 1 § 9 VA Const., and Art. XII § 1 of the VA Const. the 1998 unconstitutional court rules establishing the VSBDB as a “court” and to appoint VSBDB members as judges (VA Code § 54.1-3935 (2017)) (App-26), and,

second, the VSBDB lobbied for the enacting in 2017/2019 in violation of Act. IV § 14, &3(18) VA Const. special legislation aimed to grant immunity to the VSBDB as a private association VA Code § 8.01-223.2 (2017) and 2019 HB 2111.

Thus the Amended Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition was properly filed based this evidence that VA Code § 54.1-3935 (2017) was enacted to conceal the ongoing violations of VA Const and VA Code by retroactively

“[c]onform[ing] the statutory procedure for the disciplining of attorneys” (App- 28)

to the unconstitutional 1998 Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6 establishing the VSBDB as a “kangaroo court” and to permit the S. Ct. VA to appoint VSBDB as “judge” with jurisdiction and judicial authority to discipline an attorney. Under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., the General Assembly was and is without power to circumvent the limitations and prohibitions under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const.

Thus the 2017 ex post facto amendment is highly penal since it obfuscates and seeks to deprives Rodriguez of his right of action challenging the business conspiracy and the violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

III. VIOLATION OF ART. IV § 14, ¶3 (18) VA CONST. PROHIBITION ON ENACTING SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO GRANT IMMUNITY.

Under Art. IV, § 14 ¶ 3 (18) VA Const., the General Assembly is prohibited from enacting any special, or private law,

“[g]ranting to any private corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive . . . immunity”.

The VSBDB is not a court, nor a state agency nor a corporation. It is an administrative agency of the S. Ct. VA within the unincorporated professional organization of the Virginia State Bar. Neither governmental or judicial immunity applies to them, thus they are not clothed with immunity.

Therefore, therefore courts below have denied access to an impartial court by not holding the VSBDB accountable for lobbying for the special legislation [VA Code § 8,01-223.2 (2017) (App-22) and General Assembly 2019 HB 2111], granting immunity for the business conspiracy.

CONCLUSION

The evidence confirm the denial of the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition as an integral part of the systemic denial of access to an impartial court:

(a) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for the void ab initio order to assist Holder et al.’s business conspiracy;

(b) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying to violate the amending procedure under Art. XII §1 VA Const.;

(c) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying to violate the prohibition of ex post facto law under Art. I, 10, cl. 1 U.S. Const., and Art. I § 9 VA Const.;

(d) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying to violate the separation of power under Art. I § 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., to retroactively “conform the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1932-2009)] for the disciplining of attorneys” to the 1998 unconstitutional VA S. Ct. Rules Part 6, § IV, ¶ 13; and,

(e) to not hold the VSBDB accountable for lobbying for special legislation to not be held accountable for assisting and furthering the business conspiracy in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500 by Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder et al.

For the above reasons, the petition must be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________

Isidoro Rodriguez

Former Member of the Bar

2671 Avenir Place, Apt 2227

Vienna, Virginia 22180Telephone: 571.477.5350

Argument to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia et al, in Isidoro Rodriguez vs. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (No 191136). Isidoro Rodriguez vs. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (No 191136).

Featured

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Denial of access to impartial court, Impunity in violation of the Common Law, Violation of the Doctrine of Federalism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

separation of power, Virginia Constitution

February 11, 2020, at 1420 hrs. in lieu of filing a Reply Brief:

GOOD AFTERNOON. I REQUEST PERMISSION FOR MY COURT REPORTER (IT WAS GRANTED).

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.

I AM ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ. I ARGUE TO SEEK REVERSAL, AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD ENJOINING THEIR SITTING AS A KANGAROO COURT BASED ON THE ISSUANCE OF A VOID AB INITIO ORDER. THE VOID ORDER WAS ISSUED AS THE LINCHPIN OF A PROHIBITED STATUTORY BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST/ATTORNEY ERIC HOLDER ET AL. TO DAMAGE MY BUSINESS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, REPUTATION, PROFESSION AND RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT BY REVOKING MY LAW LICENSE IN RETALIATION FOR LITIGATING TO ENFORCE MY STATUTORY PROPERTY RIGHT IN A CHOATE ATTORNEYS LIEN AND RIGHTS OF A FATHER TO PROTECT MY U.S. CITIZEN SON FROM BEING TAKEN FROM A “ZONE OF WAR” IN FY 2000 IN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA. THIS IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER ART. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA CONST., AS WELL AS VA CODE § 54.1-3935 (1950 TO 2017). (SEE Complaint against the Offices of the United States Attorney for the E.D. of Virginia and District of Columbia, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation for Refusing to Investigate/Charge Eric Holder et al. for a Business Conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499, 500, by acts of Malfeasance During the Obama Administration in Violations of Art. VI of the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

THUS, THE BENCHMARK FOR THE WRIT ARE THE CONTROLLING PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT FROM 1835 TO 2007 MANDATING THAT PURSUANT TO ART. VI VA CONST. THE JUDICIAL POWER TO REVOKE A VIRGINIA LAW LICENSE WITH STATEWIDE EFFECT CAN ONLY BE BY STATUTE THAT WAS ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. THUS, NO COURT CAN ISSUE COURT RULES IT POWER TO DISBAR AN ATTORNEY WITH STATEWIDE EFFECT INCONSISTENT WITH RIGHT UNDER VA CODE. SEE EX PARTE FISHER, 6 LEIGH (33 VA.) 619 (1835) 624-25 (1835), LEGAL CLUB OF LYNCHBURG V. A.H. LIGHT, 137 VA. 249 AT 250, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), AND IN RE: JOHATHAN A. MOSELEY, SUP CT. VA NO 061237 (2007). THUS, THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS BASED ON THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE UNDER VIRGINIA CONST., VA CODE, AND CASE LAW,[1] AS MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRUNCH 137, 140 (1803), STATES,

“[C]OURTS ARE CONSTITUTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND THEY CANNOT ACT 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.”

ALL OF THE ABOVE COMMAND THAT WHEN AN ENTITY CREATED BY COURT RULES SUCH AS THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD HAS NEITHER CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, NOR STATUTORY AUTHORITY, NOR INHERENT LEGAL POWER, NOR JURISDICTION TO RENDER ANY ORDER. THUS THE 2006 ORDER VOID AB INITIO IS A COMPLETE NULLITY FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUANCE AND MAY BE IMPEACHED DIRECTLY OR COLLATERALLY AT ANY TIME, OR IN ANY MANNER. THIS PARTICULARLY BASED ON THE SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND COMMON LAW JURY TRIAL TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE OF MALFEASANCE.

THEREFORE, THE WRIT SEEKS,

TO ENFORCE THE PROHIBITIONS AND MANDATES OF SEPARATION OF POWER UNDER I § 5 VA CONST.;[2]
THE WRIT SEEKS TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION UNDER ART. VI §§ 1[3], 5[4] & 7[5] VA CONST. WHEREIN THE CITIZENS GAVE ONLY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THE POWER TO IMPART JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND TO APPOINT JUDGES.
THE WRIT SEEKS TO ENFORCE VA CODE § 54.1-3915[6] & § 54.1-3935 (1950-2009),[7] ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSISTENT WITH THE VA CONST. RESTRICTIONS TO ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE DECENTRALIZE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM IN EACH IN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF VIRGINIA, IN TANDEM WITH THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS POWER UNDER VA CODE § 54.1-3934.[8]
THE WRIT SEEKS TO ENFORCE PROHIBITIONS OF 1 § 9 AND ART. XII § 1 OF THE VA CONST.,[9] TO ENJOIN THE EX POST FACTO AMENDMENT OF VA CODE § 54.1-3935 TO ADOPT RETROACTIVELY IN 2017 THE 1998 COURT RULES THAT BESTOWED JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ON THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD AND APPOINTED THEM AS JUDGES.
THE WRIT SEEKS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, COMPENSATION UNDER VA CODE §§ 18.2-499 & 500[10] FOR A RETALIATORY BUSINESS CONSPIRACY TO REVOKE MY LAW LICENSE FOR LITIGATING TO ENFORCE MY STATUTORY PROPERTY RIGHTS IN A CHOATE VA CODE ATTORNEYS LIEN ON A CLIENT’S CONTRACT CLAIM TO TREASURE TROVE VALUED AT $18 BILLION DOLLARS AND LITIGATING TO ENFORCE MY RIGHTS AS A FATHER UNDER JOINT CUSTODY AGREEMENT/VA CODE TO PROTECT MY U.S. CITIZEN SON FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST HIS WILL IN 2000 TO A “WAR ZONE” IN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA. THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD ISSUED THE 2006 VOID AB INITIO ORDER TO DAMAGE MY BUSINESS, REPUTATION, PROFESSION, EMPLOYMENT, AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO 2006 FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

THE GOVERNMENT SURREALLY NEITHER DENIES NOR CHALLENGES THE ABOVE EVIDENCE OF THEIR WILLFUL CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AND THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY BY WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST/ATTORNEY ERIC HOLDER ET AL.

RATHER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MANDAMUS ACTION BELOW OPPOSES THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT BASED ONLY ON THE DELEGATION OF COURT RULEMAKING AUTHORITY UNDER VA CODE § 54.1-3909, AND ARGUING LACK OF STANDING DESPITE THE CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST AND VA CODE.

THIS IN AND OF ITSELF IS A CONFIRMATION OF THE WILLFUL CHARACTER OF THE VIOLATION OF THE VA CONST. AND VA CODE, AS WELL AS THE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BY VIOLATION OF THE DECENTRALIZED SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER THE 1950 VA CODE BY COURT RULES THAT UNLAWFULLY BESTOWED JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPOINTING OF ITS MEMBERS AS JUDGES TO DISCIPLINE ATTORNEYS.

FINALLY, THE WRIT IS SOUGHT BASED ON THE RECORD OF A SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL COURT AND COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY TO ENFORCE THE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER VA CONST. AND VA CODE. THE LITIGATION RECORD FROM 2004 TO THE PRESENT PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF THIS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING :

FIRST, U.S. DIST. CT. HON JUDGE GIBNEY (EDVA) FAILURE TO RECUSE HIMSELF BASED ON THE FACT THAT HIS WIFE IS A MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD, AND ISSUING IN 2013 A SUMMARY ORDER GRANTING IMPUNITY, PRIOR RESTRAINING, AND ISSUING A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION DEPRIVING ME OF ACCESS TO ANY FEDERAL COURT SO FOR THE VIOLATIONS OF VA CONST AND VA CODE AND BUSINESS CONSPIRACY.

SECOND, IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONS FOR REDRESS BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (HTTP://T.CO/SLV7PZ3ZD5), FROM 2017 TO 2019: (A) THERE WAS ENACTED AN EX POST FACTO AMENDMENT TO VA CODE § 54.1-3934 TO ADOPT RETROACTIVELY THE 1998 COURT RULES; AND, (B) THERE WAS ENACTED VA CODE § 8.01-223.2 AS SPECIAL LEGISLATION IN VIOLATION OF ART. IV § 14, ¶3(18), TO GRANT IMMUNITY TO THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD FROM ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE BUSINESS CONSPIRACY (SEE ALSO 2019 HB 2111).

Isidoro Rodriguez

Rodriguez and Rodriguez

World Trade Center Barranquilla

Cale 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313

Barranquilla, Colombia S.A.

(571)477-5350

[1] 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).

[2] ARTICLE I § 5 VA CONST. “THAT THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH SHOULD BE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT; AND THAT THE MEMBERS THEREOF MAY BE RESTRAINED FROM OPPRESSION, . . ..”

ART. VI § 1 VA CONST., STATES IN RELEVANT PART THAT JUDICIAL POWER 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.”

[4] ART. VI § 5 VA CONST., STATES THAT ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE RULES, “SUCH RULES SHALL NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL LAW” ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[5] ART. VI § 7 VA CONST., STATES IN RELEVANT PART THAT JUSTICES OF, “ALL OTHER COURTS OF RECORD SHALL BE CHOSEN BY . . . THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. . ..

[6] VA. Code § 54.1‑3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations. ‑‑‑Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Supreme Court shall not promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which 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. In no case, shall an attorney who demands to be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for the violation of any rule or regulation adopted under this article be tried in any other manner.

[7] VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2007). 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 . . . the rule shall be returnable to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. At the time, the rule is issued by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice shall designate three circuit court judges to hear and decide the case. . .. In proceedings under this section, the court shall adopt the Rules and Procedures described in Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13 of the Rules of Court.

[8] VA Code § 54.1-3934. Revocation of license by Board. The Board of Bar Examiners may, for good cause, revoke any license issued by it at any time before there has been a qualification under it in any of the courts of this Commonwealth. Code 1950, § 54-72; 1988, c. 765.

[9] ARTICLE XII § 1 VA CONST. AMENDMENT, STATES, THAT ANY AMENDMENT TO THIS CONSTITUTION ARE TO BE REFERRED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THEN IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO SUBMIT SUCH PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITIZENS FOR APPROVAL.

[10] 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 or (ii) willfully and maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful act, 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.

Any person who attempts to procure the participation, cooperation, agreement or other assistance of any one or more persons to enter into any combination, association, agreement, mutual understanding or concert prohibited in subsection A of this section shall be guilty of a violation of this section and subject to the same penalties set out in subsection A.

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. . ..

Isidoro Rodriguez v. Viringia State Bar Disciplinary Board, VA Supreme Court Petition for Appeal 08/28/2019, for Violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under VA Const. and Va Code.

Featured

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez 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, Impunity in violation of the Common Law

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Accountability, Misprison of a felony by violation of right to due process, separation of power, void ab initio order doctrine

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

The Circuit Court erred in granting a Demurrer based on Rodriguez’s lack of standing to obtain a Writ to the VSBDB for their Common Law Conspiracy and Statutory Business Conspiracy under VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500, to damage Rodriguez’s law practice, reputation, profession, statutory property right in defiance of the mandates of separation of power and due process under the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Art. I § 5, Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 and Art. XII §1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.), and in willful disobediance of the liitations and prohibitions under VA Code § 54.1‑3915 & § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009), as alleged in the Verified Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition, and Exhibits A thru V.

These errors were preserved in the June 28, 2019, transcript at page 6, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 15, and the objections to the Circuit Court’s Order of June 28, 2019 the dismissing the Petition.

The Circuit Court erred in granting a Demurrer based on holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to prohibit the Common Law Conspiracy and Statutory Business Conspiracy in violation VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500, by the VSBDB issuing a Void Ab Initio Order in defiance of the restrictions under Art. I § 5 VA Const., Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., and VA Code §§ 54.1‑3915 & § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009), as alleged in the Verified Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and Exhibits A thru V.

These errors were preserved in the June 28, 2019, transcript on page 13, 14, 15 and 16, and the objection to the Circuit Court’s Order of June 28, 2019 dismissing Petitioner’s Petition.

The Circuit Court erred in enjoining Rodriguez in the Fairfax County Circuit Court and summarily dismissing Rodriguez’s motion to enjoin the VSBDB’s Common Law Conspiracy and Statutory Business Conspiracy per VA Code § 18.2-500, as alleged in Rodriguez’s Verified Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition, Motion and Brief.

This error was preserved in the June 28, 2019 transcript at pages 18 and 19, as well as objected to on the Circuit Court Orders of June 28, 2019.

NATURE OF THE CASE/MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW

On November 19, 2018, and April 4, 2019, Rodriguez filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County a Verified Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition with Exhibits A thru V (“Plaintiff’s Ex.” Trial Court Record), for an order to the VSBDB to either:

(a) advise under what authority did it in 2006 revoke Rodriguez’s license for litigating to enforce his statutory property rights in a choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien under VA Code § 54.1-3932 (2017), and statutory rights as a Father (Plaintiff’ s Ex. D Trial Court Record); or,

(b) vacate the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order and direct to stop violations of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, Art VI VA Const, and VA Code § § 54.1-3915 & 54.1-3935.

On November 28, 2018, the VSBDB refused to accept service by the Sheriff. On December 26, 2018, Rodriguez filed a Verified Motion for Publication based upon the VSBDB refusal of service or the VSBDB not naming an agent for service.

On January 2, 2019, the Circuit Court issued an Order of Publication. The Washington Times filed a Notarized Affidavit confirming publication on January 10, 17, 24, and 31, 2019. On February 8, 2019, Rodriguez filed a motion for Default Judgement.

On February 21, 2019, the VSBDB filed its opposition to the Writ. The VSBDB filed Demurrers on April 23, and June 13, 2019. In both pleadings and at oral argument on June 28, 2019, the VSBDB admitted it was not a “court,” and its members were not “judges”, but that the VSBDB interpreted VA Code § 54.1-3909 and § 54.1-3910(1950-2017) to authorize it as a “parallel” administrative agency to a “court” with the power to revoke Rodriguez’s license for his litigating to enforce his statutory rights (Transcript page 2 second ¶,and page 8, Plaintiff’s Ex. D Trial Court Record).

Based on the VSBDB admitted circumventing the limitation and prohibitions under Art. VI § 5 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1-3915 and & § 54.1-3935(1950-2016), on June 10, 2019, Rodriguez per VA Code § 18.2‑500 filed a Motion to Enjoin the VSBDB.

However, before the VSBDB filed any opposition to Rodriguez’s motion, on June 28, 2019, the Circuit Court granted the VSBDB demurrer, summarily denied Rodriguez’s motion, and enjoined Rodriguez from filing any future actions in Fairfax Circuit Court. Rodriguez noted specific objections under the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Const, and VA Code. On July 16, 2019, a Notices of Appeal and Notice of the Transcript were filed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Based on the open express distrust of the drafters of the VA Const. regarding the motive of individuals in government generally, and the Judicial Branch expressly,[1] the Citizens mandated the separation of power between the General Assembly and the Supreme Court of Virginia by ratifying Art. I § 5 VA Const.[2]

To this end under Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const. the Citizens granted only to the General Assembly the power to grant judicial authority,[3] to establish lower courts,[4] and to appoint judges.[5]

To assure those restrictions be maintained the Citizens ratified Art. XII § 1 VA Const., reserved to themselves the authority to amend these constitutional limitations, prohibitions, and restrictions.

Consistent with these restrictions the General Assembly passed in 1932 the Act of the General Assembly p. 139 (“Act of 1932”) (codified as VA Code § 54.1-3915 (2017) § 54.1-3935(1950-2016) to establish in each County a decentralized attorney disciplinary system to be administered by courts.

Disregarding the Act of 1932, Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Lawyer Eric Holder and Jack Harbeston (“Eric Holder et al.”) in 2003 filed two complaints with the VSBDB against Rodriguez for his litigating: (a) to enforce his statutory Choate Virginia Attorneys’ Lien under VA Code § 54.1-3932 on a Sea Search Armada contract claim to Treasure Trove valued at USD 18 Billion on the sunken Spanish 1707 Galleon San Jose; and, (b) to enforce his rights as a Father under VA Code and Joint Custody Agreement.

Rodriguez challenged the VSBDB subject matter jurisdiction for noncompliance with the Act of 1932, and because Eric Holder et al.’s VSBDB complaints were the linchpin of a Common Law Conspiracy and Statutory Business Conspiracy VA Code 18.2-499 & 500 to damage Rodriguez’s international litigation practice, reputation, profession, statutory property rights.[6]

Disregarding these objections, on November 27, 2006, the VSBDB issued a Void Ab Initio Order revoking Rodriguez’s license for litigating to enforce his statutory rights (Plaintiff’s Ex. D and G Trial Court Record).[7]

Rodriguez filed civil tort actions for damages based on the VSBDB void order in both Virginia and Federal Courts violating the Common Law, Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., VA Code 18.2-499 & 500, and Virginia Tort Claims Act VA Code ‘ 8.01-195. But, Rodriguez was systematically denied access to an impartial common law trial and court to challenge the VSBDB void order violation of the Act of 1932 and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine (Plaintiff’s Ex. G Trial Court Record), use to assess taxes in 2006 higher than permitted by striking litigation expenses (Plaintiff’s Ex. Qi and Qii Trial Court Record), and use in 2006 to deny Rodriguez unemployment compensation benefits (Ri, Rii, T, and U).

But, Rodriguez has been systematically denied access to an impartial common law jury trial and the court to secure accountability for the VSBDB void ad initio order and Business Conspiracy.(Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. VA 12‑cv‑663‑JAB (4/12/2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013) (nationwide Federal pretrial injunction of actions for violation of the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine);[8] (Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct. App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct. 08-411(2008); and (Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Hon. Hassell et al., Fairfax Cir. Ct. No. CL-2007-15396, VA S. Ct. No. 081146, cert. denied 08-574 (2008)) (Complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) (P-926-16)); (Petition with the United Nations Committee on Human Rights for grant of “impunity”); (Petitions to the General Assembly, Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, G I Trial Court Record) http://www.isidororodriguez.com).

In response, Rodriguez filed petitions of grievances for the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Const., and VA Codewith his NOVA representatives to the General Assembly (See http://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5). But, rather than investigating and taking corrective action in accordance with the Act of 1932:

O On January 9, 2017, in violation of Art. XII § 1 VA Const. amending procedures and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. separation of power and due process, the General Assembly enacted VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) to ex post facto retroactively “conform the statutory procedure [under the Act of 1932] for disciplining of attorneys” to the 1998 rules issued by the Supreme Court of Virginia; and,

O On January 9, 2019, House Bill No 2111 was introduced as Special Legislation in violation of Art. IV §14 ¶4(18) VA Const., by seeing to give immunity to the VSBDB from civil liability for the Business Conspiracy.

The VSBDB admitted: first, to it being neither a “court” nor its members “judges” in apparent “conflict” with the mandates of VA CODE §§ 54.3915 (2017) & 54.1 3935 (1950-2016), and Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine; and, second, to interpreting VA CODE §§ 54.3909 & 54.1 3910 (2017) to establish it as a “parallel” centralized attorney disciplinary administrative agency in conflict with the limitations and prohibitions under ART. I §§ 5 & 9 VA Const., ART. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA CONST., & ART. XII § 1 VA CONST. (VSBDB Brief in Support of Demurrer June 12, 2019, at page 2 second ¶ and oral argument) (See Brief in Opposition May 28, 2019, page 1, 11; See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. The General Assembly of Virginia, et al., VA Sup Ct Record No. 190579, Response in Opposition to the Petition at page 2 second full paragraph; Transcript of 02/21/2019 hearing pages 33 and 34, Fairfax Ct Cir Ct No 2018-16227, Responsive Pleading to Petition, page 5, (December 18, 2018).

On June 28, 2019, disregarding the above evidence, the Circuit Court granted a demurrer, etc.

AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT

I. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DEMURRER HOLDING THAT PETITIONER ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ (“RODRIGUEZ”) LACKED STANDING FOR A WRIT TO THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD (“VSBDB”) FOR VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST. AND VA CODE. (Assignment of Error No. 1)

A. The Standard of Review Is De Novo.

“The legal question presented by a circuit court’s decision to sustain a demurrer requires the application of a de novo standard of review.” Cline v. Dunlora South, LLC, 284 Va. 102, 106, 726 S.E.2d 14, 16 (2012) (citing Glazebrook v. Bd. of Supervisors of Spotsylvania County., 266 Va. 550, 544, 587 S.E.2d 589, 591 (2003)). “On appeal, a plaintiff attacking a trial court’s judgment sustaining a demurrer need only show that the court erred, not that the plaintiff would have prevailed on the merits of the case.” Tronfeld v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Va. 709, 713, 636 S.E.2d 447, 449 (2006).

Rodriguez has Standing for a Writ

The General Assembly responded to the holding in Legal Club of Lynchburg v. A.H. Light, 137 Va. 249, 250, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), citing Fisher’s Case, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835) (“[t]he power . . . make suspension or revocation of license effective in all other courts of the Commonwealth must be conferred by statute,” (Emphases added),[9] by enacting the Acts of Assembly p. 139 (“Act of 1932”) (codified as VA Code §§ 54.1-3915 (2017) & 54.1‑3935 (1950-2016)[10], under its exclusive power to grant judicial authority, establish courts, and appoint judges by establishing a County court decentralized statewide attorney disciplinary system. The General Assembly explicitly denied the Supreme Court of Virginia any power to directly discipline attorneys by requiring it to appoint a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals, City of Richmond.

Finally, under Art. VI § 5 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1 3915 (1950-2017)[11]-the Supreme Court of Virginia was prohibited from promulgating court rules or regulations in “conflict” with VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2016).

Under the Common Law, Sir Edward Coke stated “an action would lie for the conspiracy to issue and enforce a void order,” because,

[W]hen a Court has. . . no [judicial authority or] jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [not before a person who a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process. Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), (Emphasis added); see also 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries 140 at 141.

Regarding the Rodriguez standing for a Writ, consistent with this Virginia recognizes two tort claims for civil conspiracy – one under the common law and the second under statutory Business Conspiracy statute found in VA Code §¶ 18.2-499 & 18.2-500 of the criminal chapter of the Virginia Code – since the violation of § 18.2-499 is a class 1 misdemeanor. VA Code § 18.2-500 (a) & (b) statutory Business Conspiracy statute provides for the specific remedy of mandatory three-fold damages, cost of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees, and an injunction.

Thus, as early as 1888, the case of Crump v. Commonwealth, 84 VA. 927, 934, 6 S.E. 620, 624 (1988) recognized the viability of a claim for “a conspiracy or combination to injure a person in his trade or occupation is indictable.” In 1933, Werth v. Fire Companies’ Adjustment Bureau, 160 Va. 845, 854, 171 S.E. 255, 258-59, cert. denied, 260 U.S. 659 (1933) (citation omitted), acknowledged the ability for a plaintiff to sue atcommon law for civil conspiracy in noting that:

A conspiracy consists of an unlawful combination of two or more persons to do that which is contrary to law or to do that which is wrongful and harmful towards another person. It may be punished criminally by indictment, or civilly by an action on the case in the nature of conspiracy if damage has been occasioned to the person against whom it is directed. It may also consist of any unlawful combination to carry out an object not in itself unlawful by unlawful means. The essential elements, whether of a criminal or actionable conspiracy, are, in my opinion, the same, though to sustain an action special damages must be proved.

Consistent with this Virginia’s Business Conspiracy statute-VA Code §¶ 18.2-499 & 18.2-500 was enacted.

Turning to the evidence this action was filed because the VSBDB void ab initio order was issued in furtherance of Eric Holder et al.’s Business Conspiracy in violation of VA Code § 18.2.499 & 550 to damage Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession, and property rights (Plaintiff’s Ex. D Trial Court Record). Also, the action was filed because the VSBDB void order was used in 2006 to assessed taxes greater than permitted by law and to deny unemployment compensation benefits. Finally, the action was filed for violation of the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const.

Under, Howell v. McAuliffe, 788 S.E.2d 706 (Va. 2016), Rodriguez has standing because of these “sufficient interest” based upon the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine and “the parties will be actual adversaries.” Id., 788 S.E.2d at 713 (quoting Cupp v. Bd. of Supervisors, 318 S.E.2d 407, 411 (Va. 1984)). Rodriguez needs only “demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,” to assure a court, “that the issues will be fully and fairly developed.” Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 371 (2001).

The standard is easily satisfied given the extensive record of Rodriguez challenges to the VSBDB void order issued to aid and abet Holder et al. Common law and statutory Business Conspiracy by violating the separation of power under Art. I § 5 & 9 VA Const., and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & VA Const. (Plaintiff’s Ex. G and V Trial Court Record).

The injury and damage to Rodriguez are “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 460, and both concrete and particularized to Rodriguez given the systematic denial of access to and impartial court and Common Law jury trial to challenge the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order.

Therefore, the Circuit Court erred to holding the Rodriguez lack standing by failing to comply with the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine given the particularized damages by the VSBDB Void Ab Initio Order violating Art. I §§ 5 &9 VA Const. and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const. Rodriguez has standing and stated a cause of action where relief to challenge and attacked at any time, Adirectly or collaterally@ can be granted both as an attorney and as a citizen of Virginia injured by the VSBDB void ab initio order. Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, (1987).

II. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DEMURRER BY HOLDING THAT THE COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FOR A WRIT TO THE VSBDB FOR A BUSINESS CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST. AND VA CODE. (Assignment of Error No. 2)

It is a fundamental doctrine of due process under the common law, Art. I & VI of VA Const. VA Code § 54.1‑3935, and the 14^th Amend to U.S. Const., that Rodriguez as the party adversely affected and damaged by the VSBDB void ab initio ordermust have his day before a validly constitutionally created impartial court and common law jury trial. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 140 (1803); Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 6 S Ct 1194 (1886).

This right to a Common Law trial by jury is guaranteed by the VA Const. and the 7^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It gives subject matter jurisdiction to the Circuit Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus for acts outside the scope of employment and legal authority. See Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995).

Under the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine first discussed in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 140 (1803),

“[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.”

This is consistent with the twin doctrines of separation of power and due process within both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States republican system of government.

In sum, an entity such as the VSBDB, having neither constitutional authority, nor legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any act or order, the 2006 VSBDB void order is void ab initio—as not lawful, not subject to stare decisis/res judicata, and not enforceable being a complete nullity from its issuance, and is to be impeached directly or collaterally at any time, or in any manner. See also, 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).

Virginia Civil procedures the Circuit Court has subject matter jurisdiction under VA Code §8.01-195.3, to hold judge or government attorney accountable for tort outside of the scope of employment or judicial authority or jurisdiction (relief from tort liability apply only to actions within “official capacity” and “acting legally within the scope of their employment,” Sayers v. Bullar, 180 Va. at 229 and 230, 22 S.E.2d at 12 and 13 (1942).

Similarly, under the Business Conspiracy statute, the Circuit Court has subject matter jurisdiction to grant equitable relief to enjoin a criminal enterprise outside of legal authority. Thus, under Christopher V. Harbury (01-394) 536 U.S. 403 (2002), 233 F.3d 596 (reversed and remanded), Rodriguez must have access to an impartial Circuit Court and common law trial by jury to challenge the VSBDB void order.

Therefore, the Circuit Court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a Writ to secure accountability and removal of VSBDB for acts outside of their jurisdiction and legal authority. This is logical since to enforce the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine a void order can be impeached directly or collaterally at any time, or in any manner by Rodriguez. As explained in Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390 (2007),

An order that is void ab initio is a complete nullity that may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner. (quoting Singh v. Mooney, supra.) Furthermore “[a]n order is void ab initio rather than merely voidable, if ‘the character of the judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt'” (quoting Evans v. Smyth‑Wythe Airport Comm’n, 255 Va. 69, 73(1998); Morgan v. Russia and Triangle Assocs., L.L.C., 270 Va. 21, 26‑27, (2005).

See also Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705 (1925); Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95 (1987).

As explained in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877),

Since the adoption of the [VA Const.] and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the validity of void judgments may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law. . . . To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution‑‑that is, by the law of its creation‑‑to pass upon the subject‑matter of the suit.” (Emphasis added)

Thus, the Circuit Court committed reversible error by willfully obfuscating and refusing to comply with the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under VA Const. and VA Code.

III. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN ORDERING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST RODRIGUEZ AND DISMISSING RODRIGUEZ’S MOTION UNDER VA CODE §§ 18.2-500 TO ENJOIN THE VSBDB’S BUSINESS CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE, VA CONST. AND VA CODE. (ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3)

Consistent with the intent of VA Code §§ 18.2-499 & 500, this Court in Gelber v. Glock, Record No. 160500 at p. 38, (June 22, 2017), confirmed that liability for civil liability is to spread “liability to persons other than the primary tortfeasor” once there is as here evidentiary proof that the underlying tort was committed by borrowing from Illinois law, to hold that “[t]he function of the conspiracy claim is to extend liability in tort beyond the active wrongdoers to those who have merely planned, assisted or encouraged the wrongdoer’s acts.” Id. at 38. Almy v. Grisham, 273 VA. 68, 80, 639 S.E. 2d. 182, 188, (2007).

VA Code § 18.2-500 (a) & (b) provides for the specific remedy of mandatory three-fold damages, cost of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees, and an injunction.

Here the evidence is indisputable. In 2006 the VSBDB issued a void ab initio order as the linchpin to Eric Holder et al. Common Law and statutory Business Conspiracy. The VSBDB void order was also used in 2006 to deprive Rodriguez of his right: (a) not to be taxed higher than permitted by the Internal Revenue Code; and, not to be denied benefits unemployment benefits by the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Const. and VA Code.

The VSBDB void order has damaged Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession, and property rights establishing the existence of the elements of both a Common Law Conspiracy and statutory Business Conspiracy by “concerted action, legal malice, and casually related injury . . . set[ting] forth core facts to support the claim.” Kayes v. Keyser, 72 Va. Cir. 549, 552 (City of Charlottesville 2007) (quoting Atlantic Futon v. Tempur-Pedic, Inc., 67 Va. Cir. 269, 271 (City of Charlottesville 2005)); see also M-Cam v. D’Agostino, Civil Action No. 3:05cv6, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45289, at **7-8 (W.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2005) (plaintiff’s allegation that the defendants combined to effect a “preconceived plan and unity of design and purpose, for the common design is the essence of the conspiracy”). (Emphasis added)

Under VA Code §§ 18.2-500(b), Circuit Court has subject matter jurisdiction and the duty to protect Rodriguez from the VSBDB void ab initio order issued as part of a Eric Holder et al.’s Business Conspiracy. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714 (1877); See also Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)(“a void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect”) (Emphases added). The validity of the VSBDB void order is at issue, it can be attacked in any court as exceeding legal authority under Art. VI VA Const. and the Act of 1932. See Rose v. Homely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 S. Ct 343, 61 Led 608.

Consequently, the Circuit Court erred in issuing a prefiling injunction preventing Rodriguez from seeking redress and erred in dismissing Rodriguez’s motion for the immediate issuance of an injunction under VA Code § 18.2-500(b),[12] to enjoin the VSBDB void ab initio order depriving Rodriguez of procedural and substantive right to due process and equal protection of the laws. In Re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550-51, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226 (1968); see also Mississippi State Bar v. Young, 509 So. 2d 210, 212 (Miss. 1987); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 345 A.2d 616, 620 (Pa. 1975); See Commercial Bus. Sys. Inc. v. BellSouth Serv. Inc., 249 Va. 39, 48, 453 S.E.2d 261, 267 (1995) (citing Middlesboro Coca-Cola v. Campbell, 179 Va. 693, 702, 20 S.E.2d 479, 482 (1942)).

CONCLUSION

The VSBDB void ab initio order and record of the Fairfax Courty Circuit Court’s systemic denial of access to an impartial judiciary by defying the limitaiton and prohibitions under the VA Cosnt. and VA Code confirms the wrongdoing by government attorneys and judges, as well as the Virginia Bar Association. The Virginia Judicial Branch has permitted a Common Law and Statutory Business Conspiracy to damage Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession, and statutory property rights.

This evidence of retaliation against Rodriguez for being an independent advocate by the use of political influence and structural cronyism underscores the dangers warned by James Madison, that,

“[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The Federalist Papers, No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788

The record evokes the regrettable history of the sorry acts of German judges, lawyers and law school’s in the 1930’s violating the rights of citizens under the German Constitution–which was a crucial part in aiding both the rise of the National Socialist Party and the in human acts under German law, because,

the murder of the six million Jews and other persecuted minorities was done completely within the framework of German law.” Professor Michael Bazyler, The Legacy of the Holocaust and Lessons for Today: Research for a New Textbook Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law.

Thus, this Court must grant review, and remand to enjoin the VSBDB void order.

Dated: August 28, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

Isidoro Rodríguez

(571) 477-5350; E-mail: business@isidororodriguez.com

[1] Patrick Henry 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)

[2] Article I § 5 VA Const. “That the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Commonwealth should be separate and distinct; and that the members thereof may be restrained from oppression, . . ..”

[3] 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.

[4] 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)

[5] 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 . . ..

[6] Eric Holder retaliated against Rodriguez for: Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (reverse and remand for a common law evidentiary hearing before a jury of the acts outside the scope of employment by negligently DWI and having sex); See also Cooperativa Multiactiva de Empeados de Distribuidores de Drogas (Coopservir Ltda.” v. Newcomb, et al., D.C. Cir. No 99-5190, S Ct. No 99-1893 (2000) (challenge to Clinton’s Bill of Attainder); see also Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) and Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145 (1996) (violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Right to Financial Privacy (1978).

[7] The VSBDB void ab initio order was affirmed. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia, (Va. Sup. Ct No. 07-0283, VSB Docket Nos. 04-052-0794 and 04-052-1044), cert denied Nos. 07-A142 and 07A370 (2007). See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al., (S. Ct. No. 07-419, November 2, 2007).

[8] The action against Jack Harbeston was summarily dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction–despite entering Virginia to conspire with Eric Holder to the VSBDB bar complaint (Footnote 3 and 4).

[9] 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; David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954).

[10] VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2007). Procedure for revocation of license. “A. 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. . ..” (Emphasis added)

[11] VA. Code § 54.1‑3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations.‑Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article [§ 54.1‑3909 & § 54.1‑3910], the Supreme Court shall not promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which 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)

[12] The “extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction is appropriate in the instant case given the extensive record of willful oppression under color of law, obstruction of justice, and systematic denial access to a common law trial by jury to consider the evidence of a violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., VA Code and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. ��

SUPPLEMENTAL FILING IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR STATEMENT OF INTEREST TO STOP THE VIOLATIONS OF ART. I & ART. VI OF THE VA CONSTITUTION, VA CODE, AND THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE.

14 Friday Jun 2019

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Accountability, separation of power, void ab initio order doctrine

June 14, 2019

President Donald J. Trump, The White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20500
also to Attorney General of the United States and U.S. Attorney John H. Durham

Dear President Trump et al.,

Enclosed are Exhibits 1, 2a, 2b, and 2c, for filing in support of the May 20, 2019 petition for an amicus curie Statement of Interest under 28 U.S.C. § 517 (2014), to the Supreme Court of Virginia in Petition for Appeal in Isidoro Rodriguez v. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Record No. 190579, and to the Fairfax County Circuit Court for a Writ of Mandamus in Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board No. 2018-16433.

These legal actions, as well as the recently filed Motion to Enjoin the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (Exhibit 1), are in response to the summary orders of Hon. U.S. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. in Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Jane/John Does of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. VA 12 cv 663 JAB (April 12, 2013), aff’d 4th Cir USCA No 13-1638 (Nov. 2013), granting “impunity” and absolute immunity to the Washington D.C./Virginia Oligarchy of Federal/Virginia government attorneys, employees, and judges for their violations of the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

In short, the Hon. Judge Gibney (who has a conflict of interest since his wife is a member of the VSBDB) violated Common Law and 7th Amendment rights to a civil jury trial to obtain accountability and damages for violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and the business conspiracy VA Code § 18.2.499 & 550, by,

[summary dismissing and issuing a nationwide injunction barring me from] filing any lawsuit in any federal court of the United States involving in any way his disbarment or the allegations leading to his disbarment [by the VSBDB, federal courts and Eric Holder et al. for illegal acts during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations (Exhibit 2a, 2b and 2c)]. The Court further enjoins the plaintiff from filing any lawsuit in any federal court of the United States against any of the defendants in this case, against any judge or retired judge, against any United States Attorney or member of a United States Attorney’s staff, against the Attorney General of Virginia or any past or present member of the Attorney General’s staff, and against the Virginia State Bar or any agents of the Bar. The plaintiff is further enjoined from filing any additional pleadings in the instant case, other than pleadings necessary to perfect and present an appeal. [As well as ordering a prior restraint by requiring Rodriguez to file a motion] in the federal court in which he wishes to file [any other type of suit], for leave of Court to file suit. . ..”

Thus, in addition to the Statement of Interest, I also request to testify before the Special Grand Jury empaneled in the District of Columbia.

I will present evidence, in addition to the Hon Judge Gibney’s surreal grant of “impunity” and absolute immunity, of the systematic denying of access to an impartial court so to permit the Washington D.C./Virginia government attorneys, employees, and judges violations of the limitation and prohibitions under Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

This cronyism of Washington D.C./Virginia Lobbyists/Attorneys evoke the history of the sorry acts of German judges, lawyers and law school’s violation of the rights of citizens under the German Constitution–which was a crucial part in aiding the inhuman acts of Hitler and National Socialist Party, because,

“[by] the time the gas vans came and the human slaughter factories were built in Auschwitz, and the other death camps, the murder of the six million Jews and other persecuted minorities was done completely within the framework of German law.” Professor Michael Bazyler, The Legacy of the Holocaust and Lessons for Today: Research for a New Textbook Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law.

Thus, the evidence is that a clear and present danger to our Republic exists by a coup d’état of the legal profession in the Beltway and Virginia, of government attorneys and judges.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788,

“[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
Respectfully,

Isidoro Rodriguez

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PETITION FOR APPEAL, RECORD NO. ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Petitioner Pro Per, v. The General Assembly of Virginia, The Office of the Governor of Virginia, The Supreme Court of Virginia, The Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, The Virginia State Bar, and The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, Defendants-Respondents.

06 Monday May 2019

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Accountability, Limitation under VA Const., Misprison of a felony by violation of right to due process, separation of power

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1. The Circuit Court erred under VA Code § 1-200 (2005) in violation of the Common Law exception to Sovereign Immunity for acts outside the sphere of legislative authority, scope judicial authority, and scope of employment by the defiance of the separation of power under Art. I §§ 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.), the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto laws under Art. I § 9 VA Const., by enacting VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) to retroactively 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, as alleged in Petitioner’s Complaint.

These errors were preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Orders of the Circuit Court denying Petitioner’s motions on January 4, February 1, 8, and 22, 2019 and Order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint on February 21, 2019.

2. The Circuit Court erred by a grave injustice in not impaneling 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, as alleged in Petitioner’s Complaint.

This error was preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Orders of the Circuit Court dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint.

3. The Circuit Court erred in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the use of Res Judicata to dismiss the Complaint.

This error was preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Orders of the Circuit Court denying motions on January 4, February 1, 8, and 22, 2019 and dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint on February 21, 2019.

4. The Circuit Court erred in granting Respondent’s Demure based on a misnomer, lack of standing and failure to state a claim.

This error was preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Order of the Circuit Court denying motions on January 4, February 1, 8, and 22, 2019 and Order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint on February 21, 2019.

5. The Circuit Court erred in holding that the General Assembly cannot be served under court-ordered publication VA Code §§ 8.01-316(b) & 318.

This error was preserved at pages 17, 20, 21,22, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36 of the February 21. 2019 transcript, as well as in the signed and objected to Order of the Circuit Court denying the motion on February 22, 2019, and Order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint on February 21, 2019.

NATURE OF THE CASE/MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW

On November 14, 2018, Plaintiff-Petitioner Isidoro Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County a Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgement seeking equitable and monetary relief under VA Code §§ 8.01-184 et seq., against Respondents, including entities created under Art. IV § 1 & 14, Art. V § 1, and Ar, VI § 1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.”) respectively the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“General Assembly”), Office of the Governor of Virginia (“Office of the Governor”) and the Supreme Court of Virginia (“Court”), as well as the the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar, and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (”VSBDB”).

Rodriguez provided evidence (Plaintiff’s Ex A through V filed with the Complaint and thereafter Supplemental filings), establishing that from 2003 to the present Respondents during the administrations of Governors Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Bob McDonnell, Terry McAuliffe, and Ralph Northam, acted outside the sphere of their legitimate legislative activity, the scope of judicial authority, and employment to unlawfully expand the power of the Court by violating: (a) the separation power under Art. I § 5 VA Const. and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const.; (b) the amending procedures under Art. XII § 1 VA Const.; (c) the prohibition under Art. I § 9 VA Const on the enactment of ex post facto legislation; and, (d) the right to due process under Art. I §§ 11 & 15 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, by a business conspiracy and Class 2 & 6 felony VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, to “[resist] the execution of the laws under color of authority.”

In response to Rodriguez’s petitions to the General Assembly for an investigation, and complaints to the OAS and the UN for the surreal grant of “impunity” for acts outside fo legal authority (www.isidororodriguez.com), Respondents in 2017 enacted ex post facto VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) to expand the power of the Court by retroactively “conform[ing] the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1932-2009)] for the disciplining of attorneys” to unconstitutional Court Rule Part 6, § IV, 13-6, issued in 1998 that created a “parallel” centralized statewide attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control, establishment of the VSBDB as a lower court with judicial authority to discipline attorneys and appointing VSBDB members as judges. The motive for violation of Art. I § 5 VA Const. and VA Code § 54.1‑3915 (1950-2017) restrictions on the Court was to defy the rights of all citizens of the independent decentralized legal profession established in 1932 under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1950-2009).

All other the Respondents were serviced by the Sheriff on November 28, 2018, but the General Assembly refused to accept service. On December 26, 2018, Rodriguez filed an affidavit under oath that the General Assembly refused to accept service by the Sheriff at the General Assembly Building, Richmond, VA, declined to name an agent for service, and refused all U.S. postal service mail. On January 2, 2019, the Circuit Court issued an Order of Publication by the Washington Times on January 10, 17, 24, and 31, 2019. On January 31, 2019, the newspaper filed a Notarized Affidavit of Publication. Rodriguez filed on February 8, 2019, a motion for Default Judgement against the General Assembly for failure to appear as Ordered.

On January 4, February 1, 8, and 22, 2019, the Circuit Court denied all of Rodriguez’s motions for (1) an injunction of the VSBDB 2006 Void Ab Initio Order unlawfully revoking Rodriguez’s license to practice law for litigating to enforce his statutory property rights and rights as a father; (2) a Writ Quo Warrento against Respondents; (3) an injunction of ex post facto VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017); (4) for a Special Grand Jury; and, (5) for Default against the General Assembly for failure to answer/appear pursuant to court-ordered publication.

On February 21, 2019, the Circuit Court held a hearing on Respondents’ Plea to Dismiss based on Sovereign Immunity, Res Judicata and Demurrer. The Circuit Court dismissed Rodriguez’s Complaint, over specific objections. Rodriguez filed on March 12, 2019, a Notice of Appeal and Notice of Filing of the Transcript.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Citizens ratified Art. I § 5 VA Const., to mandate the separation of power between the General Assembly, the Office of the Governor, and the Court.

Based on the open distrust of the motive of individuals in government generally, and the Court expressly of the drafters of the VA Const., the Citizens ratified Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., to give only to the General Assembly the power to enact statutes giving judicial authority, establishing lower courts, and appointing judges. Also, the Citizens ratified Art. XII § 1 VA Const., to reserve to themselves the power to amend the constitutional restrictions on the Court.

In 1932 in response to the holding in Legal Club of Lynchburg v. A.H. Light, 137 Va. 249, at 250, 119 S.E. 55 (1923), citing Fisher’s Case, 6 Leigh (33 Va.) 619 (1835) (“[t]he power to go further and make suspension or revocation of license effective in all other courts of the Commonwealth [this] must be conferred by statute,” (Emphases added), the Acts of Assembly p. 139 (“1932 Act”) (codified as VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009), was passed to maintain the separation of power and restrictions on the Court by establishing a decentralized statewide attorney disciplinary system authorizing the judicial power to discipline attorneys only to County Circuit Courts and Courts of Appeal, and explicitly denying the Court power to discipline attorneys directly (VA Code § 54.1‑3934, giving only to the Board of Bar Examiners power to revoke an attorney’s license).

To assure the Court’s compliance with the decentralized attorney disciplinary system, Art. VI § 5 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1 3915 (1950-2017) prohibited the Court from promulgating court rules or regulations inconsistent with VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009). 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; and David Oscar Williams, Jr., The Disciplining of Attorneys in Virginia 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 3 (1954).

However, in defiance of the prohibitions on the Court, the Respondents used legal sophistry to interpret VA Code § 54.1‑3909 & 3910 to issue Rule Part 6, ( IV to establish a “parallel” centralized attorney disciplinary system under the Court’s control by issuing court rules in 1998 to give judicial authority the VSBDB as a “lower court” to discipline attorneys, and to appoint VSBDB members as “judges.” (Respondents Admissions and the Circuit Court order, Transcript of 02/21/2019 hearing pages 33 and 34).

Shortly after that, in retaliation for Rodriguez’s litigations during the Clinton/Bush Administrations Washington D.C./Virginia Lobbyist/Lawyer Oligarchy under the stewardship of Eric Holder undertook a business conspiracy in violation of VA Code 18.2-499 & 500 to damage Rodriguez’s Federal pro hoc vice litigation practice, reputation, profession and property rights. Washington D.C. Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder and Mr. Jack Harbeston (former Managing Partner of Rodriguez’s clients Sea Search Armada and Armada Company (“SSA”) dissolved in 2002) filed in 2003 two fraudulent VSBDB bar complaints against Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his statutory rights: (a) in a Choate Virginia Attorneys’ Lien under VA Code § 54.1-3932 on SSA’s contract claim to 50% of the Treasure Trove (USD 18 Billion) on the sunken Spanish 1707 Galleon San Jose; and, (b) as a father pursuant to Treaty, VA Code, and Joint Custody Agreement (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).

On November 27, 2006, the VSBDB issued a Void Ab Initio Order usurping judicial authority to revoke Rodriguez’s license for litigating to enforce statutory rights. This Court affirmed in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine. Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia, (Va. Sup. Ct No. 07-0283, VSB Docket Nos. 04-052-0794 and 04-052-1044), cert denied Nos. 07-A142 and 07A370 (2007). See also Isidoro Rodriguez v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al., (S. Ct. No. 07-419, November 2, 2007).

Rodriguez filed two administrative claims in 2007 under the common law and Virginia Tort Claims Act VA Code ( 8.01-195 challenging the VSBDB void ab initio order, and filed civil actions seeking damages.

But Respondents systematically denied access to an impartial common law jury trial and courts to deny challenges the VSBDB void ad initio order and to enforce Rodriguez’s Choate Attorney’s Lien. In violation of their judicial authority, the courts assume away the Common Law exception to the claim of either sovereign immunity, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine bar to the use of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or stare decisis. See Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., et al., No. 081146 (2008); Fairfax Cir Ct. No CL-2007-1796) (void order holding the VSBDB absolute immune for violation of the VA Const. and VA Code); see Plaintiff’s Ex. G1 filed with the Complaint listing the use of the VSBDB void ab initio order; see also, Isidoro Rodriguez v. John/Jane Doe of the VSBDB et al., (2013) EDVA No. 3:12-cv-00663 (the Hon. Dist. Judge John A. Gibney surreally issued an unpublished nationwide void order granting “impunity” by enjoining and prior restraining the filing future federal litigation challenging the violations of due process, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, VA Const., and VA Code).

In response to Rodriguez’s complaints to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the OAS (P-926-16), and the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, the General Assembly on January 9, 2017, enacted ex post facto VA Code § 54.1 3935 (2017) to expand the power of the Court by retroactively “conform[ing] the statutory procedure [under VA Code § 54.1 3935 (1932-2009)] for the disciplining of attorneys” to the unlawful Court’s rule.

In response Rodriguez’s January 5, 2019 petition, in violation of Art. IV §14 ¶4(18) House Bill No 2111 was introduced on January 9, 2019, as Special Legislation to give immunity from accountability to government attorneys and judges from civil liability for their business conspiracy since 2003 (Supplemental Filing on February 21, 2019).

AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT

THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN VIOLATING THE COMMON LAW EXCEPTION TO THE DEFENSE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. (Assignment of Error No. 1)
The Standard of Review Is De Novo.

“The legal question presented by a circuit court’s decision to sustain a demurrer requires the application of a de novo standard of review.” Cline v. Dunlora South, LLC, 284 Va. 102, 106, 726 S.E.2d 14, 16 (2012) (citing Glazebrook v. Bd. of Supervisors of Spotsylvania County, 266 Va. 550, 544, 587 S.E.2d 589, 591 (2003)). “On appeal, a plaintiff attacking a trial court’s judgment sustaining a demurrer need only show that the court erred, not that the plaintiff would have prevailed on the merits of the case.” Tronfeld v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Va. 709, 713, 636 S.E.2d 447, 449 (2006).

UNDER THE COMMON LAW THERE IS NO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS VIOLATING THE VA CONST., VA CODE, AND THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE.

At the outset, the General Assembly enacted VA Code § 1-200 (2005), to mandate that the,

“The Common Law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly. VA. Code § 1-10; 2005. (Emphasis added)

Thus, the English Common Law controls all judicial decisions, except when the General Assembly specifically enacted legislation to change the Common Law rule.

Regarding the defense of Sovereign Immunity, Common Law only permitted its use when a defendant was acting within the legal authority. This is consistent with the Magna Carta which held officials and judges accountable for acts outside of their legal authority and jurisdiction. As explained by Sir Edward Coke, 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038‑41,

[W]hen a Court has. . . has no [judicial authority or] jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [not before a person who a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process . . . (Emphasis added)

The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), held that an action for equitable relief and damages would lie for the conspiracy to issue and enforce a void order as part of a criminal enterprise outside of legal authority, and the facts were to be decided by a common law trial by jury. Thus, the Common Law provided for accountability and removal of officials and judges for acts outside of their jurisdiction and judicial authority, 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries 140 at 141.

The Common Law did not permit the defense of Sovereign Immunity to allow the aiding and abetting of unlawful acts outside of governmental functions.

Regarding the Common Law and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 140 (1803), 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 when an entity has neither constitutional authority, nor legal power, nor jurisdiction to render any order as a lower court-it is a void ab initio order as a complete nullity from the date of its issuance and may be impeached directly or collaterally 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).

Consistent with the Common Law, VA Code §8.01-195.3, to permit the holding of a judge or government attorney accountable with no immunity from tort suit for acts outside of the scope of employment or judicial authority or jurisdiction (relief from tort liability apply only to actions within “official capacity”). In Sayers v. Bullar, 180 Va. at 229 and 230, 22 S.E.2d at 12 and 13 (1942), the court held that sovereign immunity applies only when government entities, officials, or employees were “acting legally within the scope of their employment.” Thus, Respondents cannot claim Sovereign Immunity for:

(A) Acts outside the scope of employment, Katia Gutierrez de Martínez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227 (1995) (Rehnquist dissenting) (Rodriguez argued/won before the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse to USCA 4th Cir., to obtain the holding that there was a right to a common law evidentiary hearing before a jury on the alleged acts of government employees acts outside the scope of employment); See also Burnam v. West, 681 F. Supp. 1169, 1172 (E.D. Va. 1988).

(B) Grossly negligent conduct, McLenagan v. Karnes, 27 F.3d 1002 (4th Cir. 1994);

(4) Acts characterized as bad faith, Tomlin v. McKenzie, 251 Va. 478, 468 S.E.2d 882 (1996).

Rodriguez under the Common Law is only required to prove that Respondents have acted outside the scope of legislative authority, judicial authority, or employment in violation of the VA Const, and VA Code. Therefore the Circuit Court erred because there is no absolute immunity from equitable and injunctive relief for the acts in violation of the limitations and prohibitions under Art. I § 5 & 9 VA Const., Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., and, Art. XII § 1 VA Const.

THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN NOT EMPANELING A SPECIAL GRAND JURY TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL ACTS OUTSIDE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY. (Assignment of Error No. 2)

The record confirms that neither courts nor prosecutors have investigated Rodriguez’s criminal complaint (Plaintiff’s Ex. K filed with the Complaint). But, as explained in U.S. v. Udzuela, 671 F.2d 995 (1982, Ill.),

Strictly speaking, the grand jury is a constitutional fixture in its own right, belonging to neither the executive nor the judicial branch, see United States v. Leverage Funding Systems, Inc., 637 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied; United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312-13 (9th Cir.), cert. denied; Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 712 n.54 (D.C.Cir.1973); In re April 1956 Term Grand Jury, 239 F.2d 263, 268-69 (7th Cir. 1956) (Emphasis added)

The Handbook for Virginia Grand Juries-City of Charlesville, explains that under the Common Law the Special Grand Jury serves as a quality control device on government, or more appropriately, serves as a (watchdog( against the wrongdoing. See Fairfax County Resolves (1774) (Developed the issues that led to the Declaration of Independence).

Under VA Code § 19.2-211, a Special Grand Jury is allowed to investigate wrongdoing and crimes, but not to indict. Vihko v. Commonwealth, 393 S.E.2d 413 (VA.C. App 1990) (the evidence gathered by the Special Grand Jury is presented to the regular grand jury, which may indict).

Here the evidence is that both the Respondents and the Circuit Court have misinterpreted VA Code § 54.1‑3909 & 3910, to circumvent the prohibitions under Art. VI § 5 VA Const., and VA Code § 54.1‑3915 (1950-2017) violate the 1932 Act’s decentralized attorney discipline system under VA Code § 54.1‑3935A (1950-2009).

This evidence confirms the ongoing violations of the VA Const., and VA Code, by the Class 2 & 6 felony VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482 to, “[resist] the execution of the laws under color of authority,” and business conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-499 & 500.

Under Va. Code §19.2-191 and § 19.2-206, a Special Grand Jury may be convened by the circuit court at any time upon the court’s own motion to investigate and report any condition which involves or tends to promote criminal activity. Furthermore, the 2007 ed. of the Handbook for Virginia Grand Jurors at page 16, published by Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia, states that ([a]ny Citizen . . . may ask the Circuit Court of a county to convene a Special Grand Jury. ( Therefore, a Circuit judge may impanel a Special Grand Jury to investigate a crime and malfeasance upon the request of a citizen of Virginia. See 70-71 Va. AG 106A; See also 156 ALR 330.

Finally, under VA Code §§ 8.01-186 and 8.01-188 the Circuit Court was given the power to grant further relief “whenever necessary and proper,” this includes the ability to impanel a Jury or logically a Special Grand Jury–to investigate the Respondents violations of the Common Law, VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ad Initio Doctrine. Thus, the Circuit Court erred in permitting the Special Grand Jury to be captured by the Respondents.

III. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED BY VIOLATING THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE RESTRICTION BY ITS USE OF RES JUDICATA. (Assignment of Error No. 3)

It is a fundamental doctrine of due process under the common law, the VA. Const. VA Code, and the U.S. Const., that Rodriguez as the party affected must have his day before a validly constitutionally created impartial court and had an opportunity to a common law trial by a jury of the business conspiracy outside legal authority. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 6 S Ct 1194 (1886).

But, the VSBDB and this Court have not issued a valid judgment by their violations of the VA Const., and VA Code limitations, prohibitions and protections of due process. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503 (1876). See also Restatements, Judgments 4(b).

In violation of the mandates of separation of power and due process under Marbury v. Madison, supra., Art. I §§ 5, 11 & 15 VA Const., and Art. VI §§ 1, 5 & 7 VA Const., VA Code § 54.1‑3915 (1950-2017), and VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009) in 2006 the VSBDB issued an unlawful Void Ab Initio Order revoking Rodriguez’s license as an attorney for litigating to enforce his statutory rights. Compounding this illegal act, this Court issued a void order affirming. However, Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714, 733 (1877), holds that,

Since the adoption of the [VA Const.] and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the validity of void judgments may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law. . . . To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution‑‑that is, by the law of its creation‑‑to pass upon the subject‑matter of the suit.” (Emphasis added)

But the record confirms this was never done (Plaintiff’s Exhibit G1). All of the courts issued void order outside of their jurisdiction and constitutional authority in violation of the common law exception to the claim of sovereign immunity and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to grant government employees and judges “impunity” for violations of the VA Const., and VA Code. Court records confirm that all of the dismissals were for lack of venue “without prejudice,” or specifically “declined to rule on [Respondents] plea of res judicata,” or and did not address the allegations of a business conspiracy. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct. App. N. 07-5334enied US Sup Ct. 08-411(2008); see also, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Hon. Hassell et al., Fairfax Circuit Court No. CL-2007-15396, VA S. Ct. No. 081146, cert. denied 08-574 (2008). See petitions for redress to the General Assembly (Plaintiff’s Exhibit D and I), Complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) (P-926-16), and a Petition with the United Nations Committee on Human Rights for the grant of “impunity” (see http://www.isidororodriguez.com).

As explained in Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390 (2007) that held,

(An order that is void ab initio is a complete nullity that may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner. ( (quoting Singh v. Mooney, supra.) Furthermore “[a]n order is void ab initio rather than merely voidable, if ‘the character of the judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt'” (quoting Evans v. Smyth‑Wythe Airport Comm’n, 255 Va. 69, 73(1998); Morgan v. Russia and Triangle Assocs., L.L.C., 270 Va. 21, 26‑27 (2005).

The Circuit Court violated the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine and the Common Law by its use of res judicata.

THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DEMURE BASED ON LACK OF STANDING, MISNOMER, AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. (Assignment of Error No. 4)
Rodriguez has Standing

The Complaint is filed based upon the willful violation of the limitations and prohibitions under Art. I §§ 5, 11 & 15 VA Const, Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const., Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, as well as the particularized damage to Rodriguez’s business, reputation, profession and property rights.

Since 2003 Rodriguez was deprived of his fundamental right to his pro hoc vice law practice, reputation, profession, and property right in his Choate Virginia statutory Attorney’s Lien based the use of unconstitutional Court’s rules. Since January 2017 the General Assembly enacted ex post facto VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017) to retroactively “conform” the statute to the unlawful court rules.

Thus, Rodriguez has standing as a citizen of Virginia and as an attorney injured by the VSBDB void ab initio order under the holding in Howell v. McAuliffe, 788 S.E.2d 706 (Va. 2016), where this Court held that citizens have standing if there is “sufficient interest” and “the parties will be actual adversaries.” Howell, 788 S.E.2d at 713 (quoting Cupp v. Bd. of Supervisors, 318 S.E.2d 407, 411 (Va. 1984)).

To claim standing Rodriguez need only “demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,” to assure a court, “that the issues will be fully and fairly developed.” Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 371 (2001).

That standard is easily satisfied given the litigation record (Plaintiff’s Ex. G1 filed with the Complaint) and the evidence of the business conspiracy by the violation of legally protected interest mandated by the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., before the separation of power under Art. I § 5 & 9, and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 VA Const, can be altered between the General Assembly and the Supreme of Virginia.

Also, these injuries are “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 460, and both concrete and particularized to Rodriguez given the systematic denial of access to Common Law trial by a jury of the evidence of the violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine in any Federal court based on the Hon J. Gibbons surreal nationwide prior restraint and injunction. See Damian Stinnie et al., v. Richard D. Holcomb, in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, Case No. 3:16-CV-00044 US Dist. Ct W.D. VA, Charlottesville (December 21, 2018) (Supplemental Authority filed with the Circuit Court on December 26, 2018).

Misnomer

The Circuit Court dismisses based on “misnomer,” holding that Respondents could not be sued as entities in their respective constitutional titles, but rather must be sued as individuals. (Transcript page 32).

The VA Const., specifically name and empower the General Assembly (not the House of Delegates and Senate), the Governor, and the Court as constitutional entities under Art. I § 5, VI, ( 1, 5, and 7, and Art. XII § 1 VA Const. Thus, the Circuit Court erred because:

First, the restrictions and the mandate of separation of power under Art. I § 5 VA Const. and Art. § 1, 5 & 7 VA Const. and logic is that the constitutional entities name, not in the individual’s designation of an office holder from 2003 to the present, are to be held accountable for constitutional violations.

The New York Court of Appeals held in Brown v. State, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 1144 (N.Y. 1996), that the entity, as well as the individual, are liable so to deter deprivations of state constitutional rights because no government can sustain itself when the law immunizes official violations of substantive rules leaving victims without any realistic remedy. As constitutional officers, the acts will be a violation of the oath of their respective duties of the office, and grounds for removal from office. As explained in Clea v. Mayor and City Council of Maryland, 541 A.2d 1303 at 1314 (Md. 1988):

“To accord immunity to the responsible government officials, and leave an individual remediless when his constitutional rights are violated, would be inconsistent with the purpose of the constitutional provisions.”

Second, the evidence is that since 2003 it has been the constitutional entities, not just the individual that held office during the administrations of Governors Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Bob McDonnell, Terry McAuliffe, and Ralph Northam – who have been involved in the business conspiracy to systemically violate the VA Const., VA Code, and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine.

Third, logic dictates that the action for the violation of the VA Const. and VA Code, be against the constitutional entities not restricted to the individual office holders.

Thus, the Circuit Court erred.

Rodriguez has Stated a Cause of Action

The Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine holds that Rodriguez has a right to challenge and attacked in any court at any time, (directly or collaterally.( Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95(1987). Thus, Rodriguez has stated a cause of action where relief is to be granted.

THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CANNOT BE SERVED UNDER VA CODE §§ 8.01-316(B) & 318 BY COURT-ORDERED PUBLICATION. (ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5)

The General Assembly refused to answer or otherwise defend below-despite repeated notice by Circuit Court order of publication under VA Code § 8.01-318.

Under VA Code § 8.01-317 upon receipt of proof of publication” by the affidavit from the Washington Times on January 31, 2019, the clerk of court must enter a default against the Defaulted General Assembly before or on February 21, 2019. Once the clerk enters default, the Court must take as true the factual allegations in the Complaint for Declaratory Judgement. AME Fin. Corp. v. Kiritsis, 281 Va. 384, 392-93 (2011). There is no exception to Chapter 8, Process requirements.

In Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that as a constitutional entity a state legislature has the standing to sue, and logically be sued. Thus, subject to service of process under VA Code by the Sheriff or by publication.

Thus, the Circuit Court erred in ordering that the General Assembly cannot be served by publication.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant review to correct the errors of the Circuit Court.

Dated: May 2, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

Isidoro Rodríguez, Pro Per, 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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Accountability, Limitation under VA Const., separation of power

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).

Revisiting Congress’s Delegation of Power Under the Judicial Conference Act

23 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

malfeasance, separation of power, treason

“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …”– U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982). Thus, in the United States citizens have been badly served by the Judicial Conference Act by providing for the violation of the doctrine of separation of power in permitting collusion of the Executive Branch with the Judicial Branch to promulgate unconstitutional court rules. Thus, the Judicial Branch has denied citizens access to an impartial civil trial by jury and court.Abuses of the Judicial Conference Act

No matter who is elected, nothing will change unless citizens compel Congress to make government attorneys and employees, including judges, accountable for malfeasance-which is not addressed under the Federal Tort Claim Act. Based upon my experience as a federal civil litigator since 1982, and White House political appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations, this ongoing violation of the rights of citizens is the cause and underbelly of discontent with the Washington DC Oligarchy during this 2016 Presidential Election. Judicial Branch’s violation of the Virginia Constitution

Open Letter to Members of General Assembly of Virginia for an Investigation and Impeachment for Malfeasance

05 Friday Feb 2016

Posted by Isidoro Rodriguez in Accountability for violation of Separation of Power, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

malfeasance, separation of power, treason

1. Petition VA Gen Ass Jan 4 2016

2. Jan 25 2015 Memorandum in Support of Petition

3. Notice to President of Rep. of Colombia Jan 3 2015 of Att Lien

Dear Delegate and Senator,

Because my petition that I sent to you on January 4, 2016, concern the ongoing violation of the rights of all citizens of Virginia under the VA Const. and VA Code, pursuant to your oath of office you have a responsibility to investigate the allegations of malfeasance and business conspiracy in violations of the VA Const. and VA Code. To assist you, I attach the above reference memo (see https://t.co/sLv7pz3zD5, and http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror/).

“Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy,” Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 451 (1928). In this context my allegations of unlawful acts by the Judicial Branch is not new, for as Thomas Jefferson wrote more than 200 years ago,

“[t]he germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body – working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

I assert that the acts of malfeasance establish a pattern of practice of the Judicial Branch and government attorneys’ intentional policy to deprive Virginia citizens of independent advocates capable and willing to challenge unlawful government actions and policies.[1] To this end, they have used unlawful court rules to usurp legislative power to establish a centralized attorney disciplinary system under the control of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and willful disregard and obfuscation of the decentralized attorney disciplinary system established by the General Assembly (http://home.earthlink.net/~malfeasance/.

Seldom has there been such clear and extensive evidence of government attorneys and employees, including judges, conspiring to violate the mandate of separation of power under the limitations and prohibitions of the VA Const.\VA Code (http://home.earthlink.net/~treason/).[2]

To assist you I attach my memo in support of the petition to investigate the willful acts:

(1) of malfeasance in violation of VA Const. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7, and VA Code § 54-1-3915, limitations and prohibitions by surreptitiously replacing the decentralized attorney disciplinary system created under VA Code § 54-1-3935, with a centralized system under the Supreme Court of Virginia control by issuing court rules to create the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a “court,” and name its members as “judges;” and,

(2) of a business conspiracy in violation of VA Const. VI § 5, VA Code § 54-1-3915, VA Code §§ 18.2‑499 and 500, the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, to affirm the VSBDB void ab initio order disbarring me for litigating to enforce my statutory rights (http://www.vsb.org/docs/Final_Order_Rodr_11-28-06.pdf): (i) to my choate VA Attorney’s Lien for fees owed me based on contingency or quantum merit for service since 1988 as Legal Representative of Sea Search Armada managing their contract suit to treasure trove recently confirmed by the Pres. of Colombia as located and valued at $18 Billion USD (see attach letter); and, (ii) to enforce my rights as a father under joint custody agreement and Treaty to protect my 13 year-old U.S. citizen son from being forced from Virginia to a “zone of war” (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).[3]

Therefore, in accordance with Art. IV § 17 of the VA Const., the House of Delegates and Senate must investigate and impeach for the acts of malfeasance, business conspiracy, and the systematic denial access to an impartial trial by jury. Please have your assistant contact me for further information or assistance.

Respectfully,

Isidoro Rodríguez

[1] The motive for the acts of malfeasance and business conspiracy against me by affirming the void ab initio order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board disbarring me for litigating to enforce my statutory rights as an attorney and father, is not limited to financial interests in conflict with my property rights, but, too are in retaliation for my past successful litigation against unlawful government acts and policies, i.e. Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (DOJ surreally argued that a DEA agent outside of the US was not negligent for causing a car accident while driving drunk and having sex); Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93‑6019 and 96‑6145 (interception without a warrant of all fund transfers to Colombia for more than two months); Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (Banks and DOJ liable for unlawful interception of wire communication and access to account information without a warrant); and Cooperative Multiactive de Empeados de Distribuidores de Drogas Coopservir Ltda. v. Newcomb, et al., D.C. Cir. No 99‑5190, S Ct. No 99‑1893 (DOJ=s issuance of unlawful bill of attainder under War Powers Act).

[2] Misprision of treason is defined pursuant to VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 and 482, as the, “[r]esisting the execution of the laws under color of authority,” which if proved, “, shall be punishable as a Class 2 felony.

[3]Once able, my son returned to Virginia in 2007, to graduate from VA Tech, and now resides in Northern Virginia.

Systemic Denial of Access to an Impartial Court and Trial by Jury by the Virigina and Federal Judical Branches for Act Outside their Judicial Authority

~ Separation of power, Judicial accountability for unlawful acts, treason, malfeasance, Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine

Tag Archives: separation of power

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION OF VA CODE § 54.1 3935 (2017) AND VA CODE § 8.01-223.2 (2017), ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ V. VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD, SCOTUS DOCKET NO. 20-25

Featured

Filed July 13, 2020–IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, on Petition for A Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Featured

Argument to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia et al, in Isidoro Rodriguez vs. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (No 191136). Isidoro Rodriguez vs. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (No 191136).

Featured

Isidoro Rodriguez v. Viringia State Bar Disciplinary Board, VA Supreme Court Petition for Appeal 08/28/2019, for Violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine under VA Const. and Va Code.

Featured

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

SUPPLEMENTAL FILING IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR STATEMENT OF INTEREST TO STOP THE VIOLATIONS OF ART. I & ART. VI OF THE VA CONSTITUTION, VA CODE, AND THE VOID AB INITIO ORDER DOCTRINE.

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

Revisiting Congress’s Delegation of Power Under the Judicial Conference Act

Open Letter to Members of General Assembly of Virginia for an Investigation and Impeachment for Malfeasance