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
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
No Absolute Judicial and Executive Branch Immunity for Malfeasance
Good Morning,
Relating to the pending confirmation hearing on Eric Holder is Michael Isikoff's recent cover story in Newsweek, "The Fed Who Blew the Whistle," and the general issue of pardons, amnesties and similar measures for violation of FISA and other Congressional mandates under Watergate era legislation.
Based on my more than 32 years of experience as a independent federal civil/human rights litigation attorney who has successfully represented Hispanics against the malfeasance of DOJ,1 and as a former appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administration, I know that irrespective of being a Republican, Democrat, or Independent each Senator must act now to restore the Rule of Law and assure compliance by U.S. Department of Justice of the mandate of separation of power and checks and balances (See Adam Cohen, "Democratic Pressure on Obama to Restore the Rule of Law," The New York Times, November 14, 2008).2
Thus, as a US. citizen and Nam Vet who took the oath 44 years ago to defend and protect the Constitution from, "all enemies, foreign and domestic," I petition to testify and present evidence in opposition to the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on January 8, 2009, because based on his action since 2003 as a typical Beltway attorney/lobbyis he is a defendant in a civil action to be filed by me in February 2009 in the U.S. District Court for D.C., under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 and civil RICO, as a victim of an on going federal criminal conspiracy http://capwiz.com/congressorg/sbx/f/?aid=12313551&r=1.
Finally, the evidence confirms that Eric Holder’s past policies at DOJ (i.e. the pardon of Marc Rich and other actions to usurp accountability), were the base on which former White House Counsel/Attorney General Gonzales worked from to direct DOJ to violate the rights of citizens.
Very truly yours,
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
A member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court;
of the U.S. Ct. of App for 2nd, D.C., and Fed. Cir.; and U.S. Tax Ct.
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror
Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com
Blog: http://justiciaparatodo.blog.com
1After I argued and won Martinez v. Lamagno and DOJ/DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed that I was the only known U.S. license practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics, see also Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997)(Litigation that successfully stopped the unlawful seizing by DOJ of all nonresident Hispanic bank accounts in the U.S.)[Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com]
2The dangers to our Republic and citizens by collusion of DOJ with the Federal Courts are real. ". . . the Courts in our judicial system have, in fact, become the lawmakers, when it is very clear . . . that our Constitution delegated that responsibility to the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures . . . the legal profession has truly changed from being one of the premier professions in our society to a business where the number one objective or bottom line is financial profit . . . " Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret). The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.
Relating to the pending confirmation hearing on Eric Holder is Michael Isikoff's recent cover story in Newsweek, "The Fed Who Blew the Whistle," and the general issue of pardons, amnesties and similar measures for violation of FISA and other Congressional mandates under Watergate era legislation.
Based on my more than 32 years of experience as a independent federal civil/human rights litigation attorney who has successfully represented Hispanics against the malfeasance of DOJ,1 and as a former appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administration, I know that irrespective of being a Republican, Democrat, or Independent each Senator must act now to restore the Rule of Law and assure compliance by U.S. Department of Justice of the mandate of separation of power and checks and balances (See Adam Cohen, "Democratic Pressure on Obama to Restore the Rule of Law," The New York Times, November 14, 2008).2
Thus, as a US. citizen and Nam Vet who took the oath 44 years ago to defend and protect the Constitution from, "all enemies, foreign and domestic," I petition to testify and present evidence in opposition to the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on January 8, 2009, because based on his action since 2003 as a typical Beltway attorney/lobbyis he is a defendant in a civil action to be filed by me in February 2009 in the U.S. District Court for D.C., under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 and civil RICO, as a victim of an on going federal criminal conspiracy http://capwiz.com/congressorg/sbx/f/?aid=12313551&r=1.
Finally, the evidence confirms that Eric Holder’s past policies at DOJ (i.e. the pardon of Marc Rich and other actions to usurp accountability), were the base on which former White House Counsel/Attorney General Gonzales worked from to direct DOJ to violate the rights of citizens.
Very truly yours,
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
A member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court;
of the U.S. Ct. of App for 2nd, D.C., and Fed. Cir.; and U.S. Tax Ct.
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror
Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com
Blog: http://justiciaparatodo.blog.com
1After I argued and won Martinez v. Lamagno and DOJ/DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed that I was the only known U.S. license practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics, see also Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997)(Litigation that successfully stopped the unlawful seizing by DOJ of all nonresident Hispanic bank accounts in the U.S.)[Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com]
2The dangers to our Republic and citizens by collusion of DOJ with the Federal Courts are real. ". . . the Courts in our judicial system have, in fact, become the lawmakers, when it is very clear . . . that our Constitution delegated that responsibility to the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures . . . the legal profession has truly changed from being one of the premier professions in our society to a business where the number one objective or bottom line is financial profit . . . " Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret). The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
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.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF POWER BY THE COLLUSION OF THE VIRGINIA COURTS AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB MCDONNELL
Greetings:
I respond to requests for both a summary and an explanation of how the issue affects the economy. In summary that the evidence confirms that the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”), Virginia Employment Commission (“VEC”), Attorney General Bob McDonnell, et al., aided and abetted a criminal conspiracy to retaliate against me for contacting Congress and the General Assembly for an investigation of the violation of separation of power: http://www.petitiononline.com/RDL/petition.html], and http://best-lawyer.tistory.com/entry/Isidoro-Rodriguez-Civil-Rights-LawyerFAMILY-LAW;
as well as for litigating to enforce my Federal and Virginia statutory rights as a parent, see http://www.home.earthlink.net/~isidoror/id6.html.
The linchpin of the conspiracy was for the VSBDB to revoke my license to practice law for suing to enforce my rights as a parent and attorney, see http://www.vsb.org/profguides/actions_jul06-dec06.html.
But, the VSBDB has no judicial authority under the laws of Virginia to revoke an attorney’s license. Thus, the VSBDB acted as a kangaroo court* to issue a void order. Due to this evidence of the VSBDB void order, I filed a Virginia Tort Claims Act and Virginia’s Business Conspiracy Act for illegally depriving me of my right to employment as an attorney and to federal unemployment compensation in violation of Federal and Virginia Criminal Codes. But, in violation of the right of access to an impartial court and a jury trial the Fairfax County Cir. Ct. dismissed the action based on absolute Judicial/Executive Branch immunity from accountability for criminal and tortious acts. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed.
As I noted, my challenges to the surreal holdings of absolute Judicial and Executive Branch immunity are now pending before the United States Supreme Court. Docket No. 08-339, 08-411, and 08-____(Petition for Cert. to be filed on or before October 30, 2008).
To understand the magnitude of the problem that the citizens of our State as well as the Republic have on its hands by the violation of separation of power by the Courts, I suggest for your reading, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House,* and a recent article, “How to Save the Courts” by Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, Parade Magazine, February 24, 2008.
In closing, in response to the question of “how this saves the state money?”, I contend that the current economic crisis is really a symptom of more fundamental problems. Can you have a good economy when you have inadequately or no restraints upon the government’s natural tendency to grow corrupt and out of control and to abuse power as evidence in my case? Can you sustain a good economy when the citizens cannot control government because it declares itself absolutely immune from suit for criminal and tortious acts? The answer is obvious–no.
The fact is that during the past 32 years that I have conducted federal civil rights litigation I have seen that the rights of the people to control abuse of government and its employees have been undercut by the Courts and the Bar. Who can afford to sue the government for malfeasance, even if you could find a lawyer willing and able to do so? This is no accident.
Have a good day.
Sincerely,
Isidoro Rodriguez,
Member in Good Standing of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, the United State Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, D.C. and Federal Circuits, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and United States Tax Court.
Law Offices of Isidoro Rodriguez
Virginia Office:
7924 Peyton Forest Trail
Annandale, Virginia 22003-1560
Telephone: 571.423.5066 and 703.573.1571
Telefax: 703.573.1571
Mobile Phone: 703.470.1457
E-Mail: isidoror@earthlink.net
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror
South American Office:
World Trade Center-Barranquilla
Calle 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313
Barranquilla, Republic of Colombia, S.A.
Telephone: 011.5753.605288
*“Kangaroo court.” . . . 2. A. Court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, . . . . 3. A sham legal proceeding. . . .‘” Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, at page 382 (8th ed., 1999). Emphasis added.
*Regarding The Fraternity, it concerns the “inside story of a great professional collusion in the pursuit of greed and power...." —Nicholas N. Kittrie, Distinguished University Professor and former Dean, American University School of Law; author of The War Against Authority: From the Crisis of Legitimacy to a New Social Contract. Also another review states that "...it is very clear...that the Courts in our judicial system have, in fact, become the lawmakers, when it is very clear...that our Constitution delegated that responsibility to the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures....treads on almost sacred ground when he gives his readers the real insight into how the legal profession has truly changed from being one of the premier professions in our society to a business where the number one objective or bottom line is financial profit..." Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret).
I respond to requests for both a summary and an explanation of how the issue affects the economy. In summary that the evidence confirms that the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”), Virginia Employment Commission (“VEC”), Attorney General Bob McDonnell, et al., aided and abetted a criminal conspiracy to retaliate against me for contacting Congress and the General Assembly for an investigation of the violation of separation of power: http://www.petitiononline.com/RDL/petition.html], and http://best-lawyer.tistory.com/entry/Isidoro-Rodriguez-Civil-Rights-LawyerFAMILY-LAW;
as well as for litigating to enforce my Federal and Virginia statutory rights as a parent, see http://www.home.earthlink.net/~isidoror/id6.html.
The linchpin of the conspiracy was for the VSBDB to revoke my license to practice law for suing to enforce my rights as a parent and attorney, see http://www.vsb.org/profguides/actions_jul06-dec06.html.
But, the VSBDB has no judicial authority under the laws of Virginia to revoke an attorney’s license. Thus, the VSBDB acted as a kangaroo court* to issue a void order. Due to this evidence of the VSBDB void order, I filed a Virginia Tort Claims Act and Virginia’s Business Conspiracy Act for illegally depriving me of my right to employment as an attorney and to federal unemployment compensation in violation of Federal and Virginia Criminal Codes. But, in violation of the right of access to an impartial court and a jury trial the Fairfax County Cir. Ct. dismissed the action based on absolute Judicial/Executive Branch immunity from accountability for criminal and tortious acts. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed.
As I noted, my challenges to the surreal holdings of absolute Judicial and Executive Branch immunity are now pending before the United States Supreme Court. Docket No. 08-339, 08-411, and 08-____(Petition for Cert. to be filed on or before October 30, 2008).
To understand the magnitude of the problem that the citizens of our State as well as the Republic have on its hands by the violation of separation of power by the Courts, I suggest for your reading, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House,* and a recent article, “How to Save the Courts” by Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, Parade Magazine, February 24, 2008.
In closing, in response to the question of “how this saves the state money?”, I contend that the current economic crisis is really a symptom of more fundamental problems. Can you have a good economy when you have inadequately or no restraints upon the government’s natural tendency to grow corrupt and out of control and to abuse power as evidence in my case? Can you sustain a good economy when the citizens cannot control government because it declares itself absolutely immune from suit for criminal and tortious acts? The answer is obvious–no.
The fact is that during the past 32 years that I have conducted federal civil rights litigation I have seen that the rights of the people to control abuse of government and its employees have been undercut by the Courts and the Bar. Who can afford to sue the government for malfeasance, even if you could find a lawyer willing and able to do so? This is no accident.
Have a good day.
Sincerely,
Isidoro Rodriguez,
Member in Good Standing of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, the United State Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, D.C. and Federal Circuits, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and United States Tax Court.
Law Offices of Isidoro Rodriguez
Virginia Office:
7924 Peyton Forest Trail
Annandale, Virginia 22003-1560
Telephone: 571.423.5066 and 703.573.1571
Telefax: 703.573.1571
Mobile Phone: 703.470.1457
E-Mail: isidoror@earthlink.net
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror
South American Office:
World Trade Center-Barranquilla
Calle 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313
Barranquilla, Republic of Colombia, S.A.
Telephone: 011.5753.605288
*“Kangaroo court.” . . . 2. A. Court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, . . . . 3. A sham legal proceeding. . . .‘” Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, at page 382 (8th ed., 1999). Emphasis added.
*Regarding The Fraternity, it concerns the “inside story of a great professional collusion in the pursuit of greed and power...." —Nicholas N. Kittrie, Distinguished University Professor and former Dean, American University School of Law; author of The War Against Authority: From the Crisis of Legitimacy to a New Social Contract. Also another review states that "...it is very clear...that the Courts in our judicial system have, in fact, become the lawmakers, when it is very clear...that our Constitution delegated that responsibility to the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures....treads on almost sacred ground when he gives his readers the real insight into how the legal profession has truly changed from being one of the premier professions in our society to a business where the number one objective or bottom line is financial profit..." Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret).
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
No Absolute Judicial and Executive Branch Immunity for Malfeasance
On the above subject, I recently filed with the U.S. Supreme Court the following:
● on September 15, 2008, I filed a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-339, to compel the federal courts pursuant to 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 as a parent to secure visitations and protect my Son by the obstructing of my parental rights from 2003 until 2007 (See: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror ). At the time my Son who is a U.S. citizen was 14 yrs to 17 yrs old, wished to live with me in Virginia, but both the Judicial and Executive Branches refused to comply with their duty under a Treaty (after being deprived of his rights as a U.S. citizen for 5 years, once my Son was able to he returned to the US and now is in his second year at Virginia Tech).
The evidence confirms that the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Federal Courts in the DC Circuit, the Attorney General and Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”), the DC Committees on Admissions (“Committee”), and Lobbyist/Attorneys in DC, have criminally conspired to injure me by depriving me of employment in DC and federal unemployment compensation benefits in retaliation for my lawfully petitioning Congress and filing a civil RICO action based on the obstruction of his Federal statutory rights as a parent in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204.
The linchpin of the conspiracy was for the VSBDB to revoke my license to practice law in Virginia.
However, the VSBDB is without judicial authority under the laws of Virginia to revoke an attorney’s license, and their order is void as issued by a kangaroo court. (”Kangaroo court.” . . . 2. A. Court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. . . .‘” Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, at page 382 (8th ed., 1999). Emphasis added.)
Despite this record the Federal lower courts have denied me of my statutory right to a trial by jury and dismissed a RICO suit I filed based on absolute judicial and ministerial immunity from accountability for the criminal acts of enforcing the VSBDB void order in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1513, and 3771, and for lack of venue of the federal action in D.C. see Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor in Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC D Ct. No. 07-0975, D.C. Ct. of Appeals by Special Designated Panel from 10th Cir. Docket No. 07524. I note also that on the 23rd and 25th of September, I finally was able to argue respectively before the U.S. Ct of Appeals for the 3rd and 4th Circuits against their enforcing the VSBDB void order based on the criminal conspiracy–the panel’s of both courts was in shock since they know they cannot enforce a void order.
● Consequently, on September 28, 2008, I filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari challenging the above Lower Federal Courts dismissal of the RICO action by their declaring absolute Judicial and Ministerial immunity for the criminal conspiracy to deny access to an impartial court to vacate the VSBDB Void Orders.
● On or before October 30, 2008, I will file a second Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia to challenge their declaring absolute immunity for tort liability for acts outside of their authority by creating an illegal attorney disciplinary system in violation of the mandate of the General Assembly.
In closing, the record of government malfeasance and the surreal claim of absolute judicial and ministerial immunity brings into focus the case I argued and won before the US Supreme Court in 1995. There the Court rejected of the claim of DOJ which went well beyond even the “James Bond Defense of having a license to kill a target,” to argue that a drunk government agent, driving recklessly while receiving sexual favors from a prostitute was immune from suit for acting “within his scope of employment.” Martinez, et al. v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). It is my belief that this was the motive to target me for my being the only federal civil rights litigation attorney residing outside of the United States who for 20 years opposed the Government’s assertion of world-wide jurisdiction while denying both US citizens and nonresidents alike who lived outside of the US no protection under the US Constitution, i.e, the rendition program and use of torture.
Because the concept of absolute immunity for government officials is a real danger to our Republic, I leave you with the following, "[f]ind out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. -- Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857.
Review and Sign a Petition to General Assembly of Virginia to Investigate the illegal collusion of the Executive Branch with the Judicial Branch to usurp the restrictions and limitations placed on them by the Constitution: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RDL/petition.html.
Have a good day.
Sincerely,
Isidoro Rodriguez,
Member in Good Standing of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, the United State Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, D.C. and Federal Circuits, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and United States Tax Court.
Law Offices of Isidoro Rodriguez
Virginia Office:
7924 Peyton Forest Trail
Annandale, Virginia 22003-1560
Telephone: 571.423.5066 and 703.573.1571
Telefax: 703.573.1571
Mobile Phone: 703.470.1457
E-Mail: isidoror@earthlink.net
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror
South American Office:
World Trade Center-Barranquilla
Calle 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313
Barranquilla, Republic of Colombia, S.A.
Telephone: 011.5753.605288
● on September 15, 2008, I filed a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-339, to compel the federal courts pursuant to 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 as a parent to secure visitations and protect my Son by the obstructing of my parental rights from 2003 until 2007 (See: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror ). At the time my Son who is a U.S. citizen was 14 yrs to 17 yrs old, wished to live with me in Virginia, but both the Judicial and Executive Branches refused to comply with their duty under a Treaty (after being deprived of his rights as a U.S. citizen for 5 years, once my Son was able to he returned to the US and now is in his second year at Virginia Tech).
The evidence confirms that the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Federal Courts in the DC Circuit, the Attorney General and Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”), the DC Committees on Admissions (“Committee”), and Lobbyist/Attorneys in DC, have criminally conspired to injure me by depriving me of employment in DC and federal unemployment compensation benefits in retaliation for my lawfully petitioning Congress and filing a civil RICO action based on the obstruction of his Federal statutory rights as a parent in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204.
The linchpin of the conspiracy was for the VSBDB to revoke my license to practice law in Virginia.
However, the VSBDB is without judicial authority under the laws of Virginia to revoke an attorney’s license, and their order is void as issued by a kangaroo court. (”Kangaroo court.” . . . 2. A. Court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. . . .‘” Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, at page 382 (8th ed., 1999). Emphasis added.)
Despite this record the Federal lower courts have denied me of my statutory right to a trial by jury and dismissed a RICO suit I filed based on absolute judicial and ministerial immunity from accountability for the criminal acts of enforcing the VSBDB void order in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1513, and 3771, and for lack of venue of the federal action in D.C. see Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor in Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC D Ct. No. 07-0975, D.C. Ct. of Appeals by Special Designated Panel from 10th Cir. Docket No. 07524. I note also that on the 23rd and 25th of September, I finally was able to argue respectively before the U.S. Ct of Appeals for the 3rd and 4th Circuits against their enforcing the VSBDB void order based on the criminal conspiracy–the panel’s of both courts was in shock since they know they cannot enforce a void order.
● Consequently, on September 28, 2008, I filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari challenging the above Lower Federal Courts dismissal of the RICO action by their declaring absolute Judicial and Ministerial immunity for the criminal conspiracy to deny access to an impartial court to vacate the VSBDB Void Orders.
● On or before October 30, 2008, I will file a second Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia to challenge their declaring absolute immunity for tort liability for acts outside of their authority by creating an illegal attorney disciplinary system in violation of the mandate of the General Assembly.
In closing, the record of government malfeasance and the surreal claim of absolute judicial and ministerial immunity brings into focus the case I argued and won before the US Supreme Court in 1995. There the Court rejected of the claim of DOJ which went well beyond even the “James Bond Defense of having a license to kill a target,” to argue that a drunk government agent, driving recklessly while receiving sexual favors from a prostitute was immune from suit for acting “within his scope of employment.” Martinez, et al. v. Lamagno and Drug Enforcement Administration, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). It is my belief that this was the motive to target me for my being the only federal civil rights litigation attorney residing outside of the United States who for 20 years opposed the Government’s assertion of world-wide jurisdiction while denying both US citizens and nonresidents alike who lived outside of the US no protection under the US Constitution, i.e, the rendition program and use of torture.
Because the concept of absolute immunity for government officials is a real danger to our Republic, I leave you with the following, "[f]ind out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. -- Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857.
Review and Sign a Petition to General Assembly of Virginia to Investigate the illegal collusion of the Executive Branch with the Judicial Branch to usurp the restrictions and limitations placed on them by the Constitution: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RDL/petition.html.
Have a good day.
Sincerely,
Isidoro Rodriguez,
Member in Good Standing of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, the United State Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, D.C. and Federal Circuits, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and United States Tax Court.
Law Offices of Isidoro Rodriguez
Virginia Office:
7924 Peyton Forest Trail
Annandale, Virginia 22003-1560
Telephone: 571.423.5066 and 703.573.1571
Telefax: 703.573.1571
Mobile Phone: 703.470.1457
E-Mail: isidoror@earthlink.net
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror
South American Office:
World Trade Center-Barranquilla
Calle 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313
Barranquilla, Republic of Colombia, S.A.
Telephone: 011.5753.605288
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
