ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
Based on the VSBDB admitted circumventing the limitation and prohibitions under Art. VI § 5
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, the Citizens
mandated the separation of power between the
General Assembly and the Supreme Court of Virginia by ratifying Art. I §
5 VA Const.
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, to
establish lower courts, and to appoint judges.
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
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.
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
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
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).
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,
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.
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
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), by enacting the Acts of Assembly p. 139 (“Act of 1932”) (codified as VA
Code §§ 54.1-3915 (2017) & 54.1‑3935 (1950-2016), 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
Finally, under Art. VI § 5 VA
Const., and VA Code § 54.1 3915
Supreme Court of Virginia was prohibited from promulgating court rules or regulations in “conflict” with VA Code § 54.1‑3935
Under the Common Law, Sir Edward Coke
stated “an action would lie for the conspiracy to issue and enforce a void order,”
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
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
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).
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 14th 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 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It gives
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.”
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
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.
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)
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,
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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),
to enjoin the VSBDB void ab initio
order depriving Rodriguez of procedural and substantive right to due process and equal protection of the
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)).
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
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.
Court must grant review, and remand to enjoin the VSBDB void order.
Dated: August 28,
(571) 477-5350; E-mail:
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)
 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, . . ..”
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.
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)
 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 .
 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).
 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,
 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).
Has the Supreme Court of Appeals Original Jurisdiction of Disbarment
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).
 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. . ..”
 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)
“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.