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.