To Investigate Obstruction of Rights of Fathers and Rights of Attorneys Petition
Because of the General Assembly failure to investigate the on going malfeasance of government attorneys and the judges violation of separation of power(see, Petition filed in 2005 (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml; and, 2009 presentation to Northern VA Delegates, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ). I have filed a Criminal Complaint with the Governor and Police to investigate and prosecution these officials for Treason, Misprision of the Felony of Treason, and Criminal Business Conspiracy by their obstructing my statutory right as a father and to punish me for seeking to enforce my statutory rights and duty as a Virginia attorney
(See: http://home.earthlink.net/~treason/)
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE SOTOMAYOR WILL ASSURE IMPARTIAL ACCESSES TO THE COURTS
I write as an independent federal civil litigation sole practitioner who for the past three decades has litigated against the negligence and malfeasance of the government employees (See Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995, a tort suit I argued and won against DOJ who asserted that DEA agent was not negligent for causing a car accident while driving drunk and having sex). Thus, as a Nam Vet who in 1964 swore to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies “foreign and domestic, and former White House appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations I support Sotomayor’s confirmation based on her decision in John Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, 229 F.3rd. 374 (2000), rev’d 534 U.S. 61 (2001), to provide impartial access to the courts for Constitutional violation by government employees and contractors acting as government instrumentality.
In Malesko, Sotomayor, writing for the court, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working as an instrumentality of federal government for violations of constitutional rights. She found that a "Bivens" action permits suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations. Her position is consistent with the holding in United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882), which states that,
[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to Rehnquist lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. (Emphasis added).
However, the Supreme Court reversed her ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens doctrine could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. This holding increases the limitation on the people to have access to an impartial court and jury trial to challenge malfeasance, negligence and criminal acts of the government, its employees, and agents.
Thomas Jefferson stated 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."
In this context my past litigation confirms an on gong criminal conspiracy of present and former attorneys in DOJ and judges in the Judicial Branch to intentionally violate Congress’ delegations under the Rules Enabling Act and the Judicial Conference Act to deny access to an impartial court. The evidence is that have conspired declare themselves absolutely immune from suit for tortious and criminal acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1204, and 1523, by government attorneys and judges to cover-up and deny me access to an impartial jury trial under RICO for the criminal obstruction of my statutory rights as a father and for issuing and enforcing a void order to deprive me of my right of employment in retaliation seeking to enforce my federal statutory rights, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Ed.-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Ct. Of App. No. 07-5234 (Feldman, J.), and, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. and Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. NCMEC, et al., D.C. No. 03-0120 (Roberts, J.)(http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).
Consequently, Sotomayor’s confirmation would slow the transforming of our Republic into a legal tyranny permitting the legal profession to immunize the government, its employees, agents and judges from accountability for negligent, or criminal acts outside of their scope of authority, judicial capacity, or jurisdiction. Consistent with Lee supra, Sotomayor underscore that constant vigilance must be maintained to preserve our Constitution from undue government encroachment by the use of legal sophistry of lawyers and judges intentionally acting to circumvent the limitations on the powers granted the government by “the people” in the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Sincerely,
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Ct App for 2nd and Fed. Cir., and U.S. Tax Court
In Malesko, Sotomayor, writing for the court, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working as an instrumentality of federal government for violations of constitutional rights. She found that a "Bivens" action permits suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations. Her position is consistent with the holding in United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882), which states that,
[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to Rehnquist lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. (Emphasis added).
However, the Supreme Court reversed her ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens doctrine could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. This holding increases the limitation on the people to have access to an impartial court and jury trial to challenge malfeasance, negligence and criminal acts of the government, its employees, and agents.
Thomas Jefferson stated 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."
In this context my past litigation confirms an on gong criminal conspiracy of present and former attorneys in DOJ and judges in the Judicial Branch to intentionally violate Congress’ delegations under the Rules Enabling Act and the Judicial Conference Act to deny access to an impartial court. The evidence is that have conspired declare themselves absolutely immune from suit for tortious and criminal acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1204, and 1523, by government attorneys and judges to cover-up and deny me access to an impartial jury trial under RICO for the criminal obstruction of my statutory rights as a father and for issuing and enforcing a void order to deprive me of my right of employment in retaliation seeking to enforce my federal statutory rights, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Ed.-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Ct. Of App. No. 07-5234 (Feldman, J.), and, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. and Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. NCMEC, et al., D.C. No. 03-0120 (Roberts, J.)(http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).
Consequently, Sotomayor’s confirmation would slow the transforming of our Republic into a legal tyranny permitting the legal profession to immunize the government, its employees, agents and judges from accountability for negligent, or criminal acts outside of their scope of authority, judicial capacity, or jurisdiction. Consistent with Lee supra, Sotomayor underscore that constant vigilance must be maintained to preserve our Constitution from undue government encroachment by the use of legal sophistry of lawyers and judges intentionally acting to circumvent the limitations on the powers granted the government by “the people” in the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Sincerely,
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Ct App for 2nd and Fed. Cir., and U.S. Tax Court
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
