"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …"– U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982).
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." President Harry S. Truman
"The 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" (James Madison, Federalist No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788).
"THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL--- IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING" Edmond Burk
DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS AS U.S. CITIZEN
August 10, 2009, Criminal Complaints filed with Federal law enforcement in Va., D.C., NY, CO, and PA.July 7, 2009, Criminal Complaint against Bob McDonnell et al. for Treason, Obstruction of Justice, and Misprision of a Felony filed with Virginia Law Enforcement.
2009 presentation to No. VA Delegates on Misprision of a Felony by Government Attorneys and Judges.
STATUS OF LITIGATION
Court records confirms that attorneys in DOJ, the VSBDB, and the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Jane and John Doe conspired with Beltway Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder to file a fraudulent bar complaint against Rodriguez, so to have issued by the VSBDB’s void order disbarring Rodriguez for exercising his federal rights, and for judges in both Federal and Virginia courts deny Rodriguez access to impartial judicial review of the VSBDB void order-to cover-up treason.
The objective of the criminal conspiracy was to punish Rodriguez by depriving him of his business, profession, and right to employment as an independent federal civil litigator, in retaliation for:
(i) Rodriguez litigating for damages under the Federal and Virginia Tort Claims Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq., for the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204 (Add-3), by the government’s obstruction of his federal statutory rights as a father to compel the securing of visitations with his Son pursuant to Article 21 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980 ("Treaty"), the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11601(a) & § 11602(1) and (7); Congressional Joint Concurrent Resolution 293, May 23, 2000; and, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA") VA Code § 20-146.01 et seq. See Canter v. Cohen, 442 F.3d 196 (4th Cir, March 2006);
(ii) Rodriguez petitioning Congress, the General Assembly of Virginia ("General Assembly"), and law enforcement for an investigation of the criminal violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 1204 (Add-2) by the government’s obstruction of his rights as a father.; and,
(iii) Rodriguez opposing the confirmation of John G. Roberts as Chief Justice for making false statement to Congress violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 1001 and 1204, by as to Rodriguez’s Federal Tort and civil RICO action for damages for the obstruction of his rights as a father.
B. Proceedings before the VSBDB
In 2003, DOJ’s independent contractor, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, acting as an instrumentality of DOJ, retained Beltway attorneys/lobbyists Mr. Eric Holder, Ms. D. Jean Veta, and Covington & Burling LLP, Ms. Susan Brinkerhoff, and Proskauer Rose LLP ("Holder et al."), from the District of Columbia mailed to the VSBDB a fraudulent bar complaint against Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his rights as a father under the Treaty and Va. UCCJEA (A-12). Also, Holder et al. conspired by use of the mail and wire communication with Rodriguez’s former client for them also to file a fraudulent bar complaint for Rodriguez litigating to enforce his perfected statutory property right under Va. Code § 54.1-3932 in his Virginia Attorneys Lien on approx. $3 to $10 Billion treasure troves sunk off the coast of the Republic of Colombia (A-4).
On November 28, 2006, based on the fraudulent bar complaints filed for litigating to enforce his statutory rights the VSBDB issued a void order revoking Rodriguez’ license to practice law in Virginia (A-4). The VSBDB posted the void order on the Internet and mailed it to federal courts in and outside of Virginia. The VSBDB void order was affirmed by the S. Ct. Va. on June 28, 2007. This Court denied a petition for certiorari, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al., (S. Ct. No. 07-419, Nov. 2, 2007).
C. Proceedings before the D.C. Circuit
On December 18, 2006, Rodriguez gave notice of the VSBDB void order to all of the federal courts to which he was a member to request a show cause hearing, and to seek their protection as a victim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
Subsequently on June 17, 2007, based on the evidence of the obstruction of his rights as a father and the interstate criminal conspiracy of the D.C. Ct. of App. Committee on Admissions ("Committee") to enforce the VSBDB void order to deprive Rodriguez of his right to a public hearing on his waver application and right to employment in D.C., a second civil RICO action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for damages for the conspiracy to punish him for exercising his Federal and Virginia statutory rights.
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (Friedman, J.) (Rodriguez II); DC Ct. Of App. No. 07-5234; cert denied Docket No. 08-411. See also denial of Writ of Mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 3771.
An Order to Show Cause was issued by the D.C. Circuit on June 18, 2008. After Rodriguez filed his opposition to the imposition of any discipline based on the VSBDB void order, oral argument was held on April 7, 2009. The Panel’s Order of Disbarment was issued on April 21, 2009 . The Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied on June 3, 2009.
Tuesday September 8, 2009 14:11
Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
Law Offices of Isidoro Rodriguez
U.S. OFFICE
7924 Payton Forest Trail
Annandale, Virginia 22003-1560
Hard line Telephone: 571.423.5066
Mobil Phone: 703.470.1457
E-mail: isidoror@earthlink.net
South America Office:
World Trade Center-Barranquilla
Calle 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313
Barranquilla, Colombia, S.A.
Telephone: 011-5753.605288
Resume of Work History:
Reblogged from Researching Reform:
It seems as if the winds of change in the family courts are blowing in two opposite directions - as fast as the President moves to clean up the system and make it more sophisticated and user-friendly, half-baked pixies inside the system are waving their wicked wands and sentencing parents and family members to prison for failing to disclose the whereabouts of children subject to care orders and other family law proceedings.Read more… 585 more words
WHY IS THIS A CRITICAL ISSUE?
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteBrotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."