False Statement to Congress by Chief Justice John G. roberts

The evidence confirms that from 2003 until 2007 an illegal enterprise was undertaken by the U. S. Departments of Justice and the State headquartered in Washington, D.C., and their independent contractor the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, its employees, agents and lobbyist, and attorneys, as well as Judge Richard Roberts of U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia et al. (“Federal Malfeasors”), the Fairfax County J&D District Court, the Circuit Court, the Virginia Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of Virginia (“Va. Courts”), to obstruct the parental rights of Rodriguez a U.S. citizen by not complying with their ministerial and judicial responsibilities to secure visitations under the Art 21 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, 19 I.L.M 1501 (“the Treaty”), and the Virginia’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Va. Code 20-146.25, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204, See Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. and Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children et al., D.C. Dist. of Columbia No. 03-0120 (Roberts, J.)(“Rodriguez I”). (See Canter v. Cohen, 442 F.3d 196 (4th Cir, March 2006), which held that the Executive Branch and the Virginia Courts had a duty under the Treaty to secure a parent’s international visitation rights)


Based on this evidence of malfeasance by the violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 1204, Rodriguez filed: (1) a criminal complaint against the Federal Malfeasors and Va. Courts on December 13, 2004; (2) a First Amended Verified Complaint in Rodriguez I on March 7, 2005, to include claims for obstructing his parental rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 1204 pursuant to a civil cause of action under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1965(a) and (b); (3) a Virginia Tort Claim Notice against the Va. Courts on June 8, 2007; (4) petitions with both Congress and the General Assembly for an investigation of the on going violations of the Treaty and Va. UCCJEA; (and, (5) opposed the confirmation of then Associate Justice John G. Roberts to be confirmed by the Senate based on providing the following false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 1001.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Proceedings of Nominee Justice John G. Roberts to position of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, August 1, 2005.

Question 20, Party to Civil Legal or Administrative Proceeding:
State whether you, or any business of which you are or were an officer, have ever been a party or otherwise involved as a party in any civil, legal or administrative proceeding, If so, please describe in detail the nature of your participation in the litigation and the final disposition of the case. Include all proceedings in which you were a party in interest.

Response: I am a named party in Rodriguez, et al. v. Nat’l Ctr. For Missing & Exploited Children, et al., 03-cv-00120 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 27, 2003), appeal docketed, No. 055202 (D.C. Cir. May 23, 2005). I was added as a named defendant–along with eight other judges on the D.C. Circuit, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and several judges form other circuits–in plaintiff’s First Amended Complain, filed on March 8, 2005. On March 31, 2005, the District Court of the District of Columbia dismissed the action with regard to the defendants in the original complaint, and ordered the amended complaint stricken. A notice of appeal was filed by Mr. Rodriguez on May 23, 2005. According to published judicial opinions in the matter, Mr. Rodriguez is a Virginia resident with ties to Colombia. He lived in Colombia for mush of the period between 1987 and 1999 and there fathered a child, Isidoro, in 1989. In 2001, Isidoro and his mother visited Mr. Rodriguez in Virginia. Hear the end of the visit, Mr. Rodriguez would not allow Isidoro to return to Colombia and filed a petition to modify custody in Fairfax County, Virginia court. Isidoro’s mother answered with a suit in federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; she won, and won again on appeal. Mr. Rodriguez now alleges a conspiracy on the part of numerous federal and private defendants to deprive him of his constitutional rights.

OPPOSITION TO THE APPOINTMENT OF ERIC HOLDER AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DOJ

Dear President-elect Obama,

As an old Progressive Republican who after Watergate was an appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations, I have been and is one of your volunteers and a strong supporter in Virginia since you announced your candidacy in February 2007.

At this critical time when the Rule of Law must be restored in the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and to prevent a blot on your new Administration, I write to oppose the appointment of Mr. Eric Holder to the post of Attorney General.  Because of the numerous news articles discussing Mr. Eric Holder’s possible appointment, I am compelled to submit this public opposition because Mr. Eric Holder as a Beltway attorney and lobbyist has been the linchpin in a criminal conspiracy directed against me in retaliation for my petitioning Congress and litigating to enforce my federal statutory rights as a parent and attorney, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1513.  Thus, the U.S. Senate would reject Mr. Eric Holder’s confirmation based on the evidence.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The evidence confirms that beginning in 2001 to the present the U.S. Department of Justice under the control of White House Counsel/Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Federal Courts under the direction of United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and now Chief Justice John Roberts, et al. (“Federal Malfeasors”), have been in collusion to unlawfully injure, stigmatize, and deprive me of my right to employment as an independent civil litigation attorney in retaliation for my successful federal civil action during the past 30 years against their unauthorized polices and practice on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics.1

Consequently, against the Federal Malfeasors I filed criminal complaints beginning in 2004 (Attachment 1), I petitioned Congress in 2005 for an investigation (Attachment 2), I opposed the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts for his making false statements to Congress at his confirmation hearing (Attachment 3), and I filed a civil RICO, Bivens & Federal Tort Complaint for the Federal Malfeasors obstruction of my federal statutory parental rights under a Treaty in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204.  See  http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror/id8.html.

Compounding their unlawful acts the Federal Malfeasors retained Mr. Eric Holder and his law firm of Covington  et al., (“Holder et al.”), to file a fraudulent bar complaint with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”), as punishment for petitioning Congress and litigating to enforce my federal statutory rights as a parent under Treaty and Va. Code.

But by filing the fraudulent bar complaint Holder et al., not only committed an additional criminal act, but too committed a fetal error.  This is because legal and statutory analyses confirm that the Supreme Court of Virginia had usurped legislative authority to crate an illegal attorney disciplinary system.  The VSBDB is without judicial authority or jurisdiction under the laws of Virginia to revoke my license.  Therefore, the VSBDB order is both void as issued by a kangaroo court, and illegal. [see Petition for Impeachment of members of Supreme Court of Virginia et al., dated June 2007, http://www.petitiononline.com/RDL/petition.html, and see also presentation to member of the General Assembly from Fairfax County http://best-lawyer.tistory.com/entry/Isidoro-Rodriguez-Civil-Rights-LawyerFAMILY-LAW].2

However, in response to this evidence of the VSBDB void order, or more appropriately because of it  Holder et al., and the Federal Malfeasors continued to violate the Rule of Law by  arguing that there is absolute judicial and executive immunity from accountability for tortious and criminal acts.  Thus, since 2007 the Federal Courts have “stonewalled,” denied me access to an impartial court to sue them for damages, and have refused to protect me as a victim of the on going Federal criminal conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1513, and 3771.

Therefore to challenge the surreal assertion of absolute judicial and executive branch immunity for tortious and criminal acts by the Federal Malfeasors and Holder et al., pending before the United States Supreme Court are:

● In re Isidoro Rodriguez, Petition for Writ of Mandamus, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-339, filed on September 15, 2008, to compel the federal courts to comply with the 18 U.S.C. § 3771, to protect me as a victim from the on going federal criminal acts in retaliation for my petitioning Congress and litigating to enforce my federal statutory rights,

● Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor in Chief, Legal Times, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-411, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit filed on September 28, 2008, challenging the Federal Courts dismissal of the RICO action by their declaring absolute Judicial and Executive immunity and lack of venue to challenge for the criminal conspiracy initiated in the District of Columbia by the Federal Malfeasors and Holder et al., thereby denying me access to an impartial court to challenge the VSBDB void order.

● Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. Chief Justice , Supreme Court of Virginia, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-574, to the Supreme Court of Virginia filed on October 30, 2008, to challenge their declaring absolute immunity from tort liability for the business conspiracy to damage my business and profession and other outside of their authority evidenced by their creating an illegal attorney disciplinary system in violation of the mandate of the General Assembly.

CONCLUSION

On behalf of the Federal Malfeasors, Mr. Eric Holder has been the linchpin in violating my federal statutory rights as a citizen of the United States, as well as my "fundamental right" to due process.

Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I have a right “to contract [and] . . . to engage in any of the common occupations of life.” Board of Regents of States Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572 (1972).  Therefore, when the Federal Malfeasors and Holder et al, seek to deprive me, “not only of present employment but of future opportunity for it, certainly it is no small injury  . . . ” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 704 (1976)(internal quotation marks omitted).

Thus, because my “good name, reputation, honor or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to [me], . . . an opportunity to be heard are essential.” Id. at 573 (internal quotation marks omitted).  This is particularly true when there is a challenge of void orders issued by an unauthorized Kangaroo Court, and improperly constituted judicial body acting outside of its judicial capacity and jurisdiction,  Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69, 83 (2003).

Finally, DOJ responsibility to uphold the Rule of Law is appropriately proclaimed in these word inscribed on the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department Building in Washington, D.C.:

“No Free Government Can Survive That Is Not Based on The Supremacy of Law. 

Where Law ends, Tyranny Begins, Law Alone Can Give Us Freedom.”

For the above reasons, I oppose his appointment to the post of Attorney General.

_________Isidoro Rodriguez_

Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.

THE LAW OFFICES OF ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. Dra. Irene Rodriguez

A member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court; Admitted Rep. of Colombia

of the U.S. Ct of App for 2nd, 4th, D.C., and Fed. Cir.;

of the U.S. Dist Ct ED VA; and U.S. Tax Ct.

Northern Virginia Office: South American Office:

7924 Peyton Forest Trail World Trade Center

Annandale, Virginia 22003-1560 Calle 76 No. 54-11, Office 313

Telephone: 703.573.1571/telefax:  571.423.5066 Barranquilla, Colombia

Mobil: 703.470.1457 Telephone: 011.5753.605288

Email: isidoror@earthlink.net E-mail:irenerod@earthlink.net

1After I argued and won a Federal Tort Claim Act action, Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed in an article in March 1995, that I was the only know active U.S. license federal litigation sole practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts, on behalf of resident and non-resident Hispanics.  In addition for example I have: (a) represented 360 non-resident Hispanic woman in Class action Breast Implant Cases; (b) litigated to the seizing of all non-resident Hispanic surnamed accounts in the United States as violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Right to Financial Privacy Act,  Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997); (c) litigated to compel DOJ to comply with their duty under the Hague Convention on Missing and Abducted Children and Virginia’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act VA Code § 20-124.1 et seq.; (d) litigated against a Constitutional prohibited bill of attainder against non-resident Hispanics.

2The VSBDB void order for the following reasons:

First, because Article VI § 1 and § 7 of the Constitution of Virginia only gave the General Assembly has the authority to establish courts of records with  judicial authority, the VSBDB acted outside of limited administrative authority by illegally revoking Rodriguez’s license based on Part 6, § IV, ¶ 13 (B)(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Second, Article VI, §5 of the Constitution of Virginia prohibits the Supreme Court from promulgating rules in in conflict with the general law established by the General Assembly.   Also, under Code § 54.1-3915 (Add-e) the General Assembly prohibited the Supreme Court of Virginia from promulgating rules or regulations inconstant with an attorney’s statutory rights. 

Third, as to the power to revoke an attorney’s license the General Assembly enacted Code § 54.1-3935, giving this authority only to courts-of-record. In addition, under Code § 54.1-3910, the General Assembly specifically restricted the VSBDB to be an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Virginia.