"The man as he converses is the lover; silent, he is the husband." ~ Honore de Balzac

Wednesday

JUDICIAL OBSTRUCTION OF FATHER/SON RELATIONSHIP

"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:

Click to visit the original postIt 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?

4 comments:

  1. Children's Bill of Rights

    WHEN PARENTS ARE NOT TOGETHER

    Every kid has rights, particularly when mom and dad are splitting up. Below are some things parents shouldn't forget -- and kids shouldn't let them -- when the family is in the midst of a break-up.

    You have the right to love both your parents. You also have the right to be loved by both of them. That means you shouldn't feel guilty about wanting to see your dad or your mom at any time. It's important for you to have both parents in your life, particularly during difficult times such as a break-up of your parents.

    You do not have to choose one parent over the other. If you have an opinion about which parent you want to live with, let it be known. But nobody can force you to make that choice. If your parents can't work it out, a judge may make the decision for them.

    You're entitled to all the feelings you're having. Don't be embarrassed by what you're feeling. It is scary when your parents break up, and you're allowed to be scared. Or angry. Or sad. Or whatever.

    You have the right to be in a safe environment. This means that nobody is allowed to put you in danger, either physically or emotionally. If one of your parents is hurting you, tell someone -- either your other parent or a trusted adult like a teacher.

    You don't belong in the middle of your parents' break-up. Sometimes your parents may get so caught up in their own problems that they forget that you're just a kid, and that you can't handle their adult worries. If they start putting you in the middle of their dispute, remind them that it's their fight, not yours.

    Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are still part of your life. Even if you're living with one parent, you can still see relatives on your other parent's side. You'll always be a part of their lives, even if your parents aren't together anymore.

    You have the right to be a child. Kids shouldn't worry about adult problems. Concentrate on your school work, your friends, activities, etc. Your mom and dad just need your love. They can handle the rest.

    IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT AND DON'T BLAME YOURSELF.

    ----Special Concerns of Children Committee, March, 1998

    "Children's Bill of Rights" is a publication of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. © 1997 - 2001. All rights reserved. "Children's Bill of Rights" may be reproduced under the following conditions:

    It must be reproduced in its entirety with no additions or deletions, including the AAML copyright notice. It must be distributed free of charge. The AAML reserves the right to limit or deny the right of reproduction in its sole discretion.

    © 2013 AAML Florida. 3046 Hawks Glen Tallahassee, FL 32312 | 850-668-0614

    The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask the attorney to send you free written information about their qualifications and experience. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
    http://www.aamlflorida.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.tentips

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PRO SE RIGHTS:
      Brotherhood 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."

      Delete
  2. "Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children and however they may feel about their they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey's comment on: https://www.causes.com/causes/409526/updates/791783
    Website http://erinpizzey.com
    #familycourt #familylaw #familylawattorney #familylawlawyer #familycourtinjustice #pas #alienation #parentalalienation #erinpizzey #childrensrights #fathersrights

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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?

    What 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?

    ReplyDelete

Why say NO to attorneys in the Legislature?

Why say NO to attorneys in the Legislature?
THE LARGEST CLASS ACTION IN HISTORY

Check it out!

Facebook.com/AmericanFathers

Causes.com/causes/804504-American-Fathers-4Change

"So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide. Always give a word or a sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, even a stranger, when in a lonely place. Show respect to all people and grovel to none. When you arise in the morning give thanks for the food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies only in yourself. Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision. When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." (Tecumseh).

American Fathers Liberation: ALL Men’s Rights are Human Rights. ’nuff said http://bit.ly/1JgMgEm

Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Labels

Abuse Administration for Children and Families Adversarial process Adversarial system Alimony American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy American Bar Association American Civil Liberties Union American Psychiatric Association Asbury Park Bad Judges Bad Lawyers Best interests Bill (law) Blogger (service) Broward County Carver County Chief judge Chief Justice John Marshall Child Child abuse Child and family services Child custody Child development Child protection Child Protective Services Child Support Child Support Agency Children Children's rights Circuit court Civil and political rights Civil Rights Class action Closed-circuit television camera Communications Decency Act Constitutional right Contact (law) Contempt of court Coparenting Court Contact Denial Court Corruption Court order Dads Daughters Declaratory judgment Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Divorce Domestic Disturbance Domestic Violence Due process Elections 2016 Equal opportunity Equal Protection Clause Equal Rights Amendment Equal Shared Parenting Erin Pizzey Event Facebook Facebook Page False accusation False Allegations of DV Falsifiability Family (biology) Family court Family Court Contact Denial Family law Family Law Reform Family therapy Father fatherhood Fathers Fathers 4 Justice Fathers' Rights Fathers' rights movement Fathers4Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Trade Commission Feminism Florida Florida Attorney General Florida Circuit Courts Florida Department of Children and Families Florida Department of Health florida lawyers Florida Senate Foster care Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Fraud Fundamental rights Gender equality Good Family Law Lawyers Good Judge Government And Politics Healthy Children Human rights Human Rights And Civil Liberties Joaquin Sapien Joint Custody Joint custody (United States) Judge Judge Judy Judicial Accountability Judicial misconduct Judicial Reform Judiciary Law Law And Order Lawyer Legal abuse Legal Abuse Trauma Legal Abuse Trauma/Syndrome Legal Proceedings liberty and the pursuit of happiness Life Linda Gottlieb Mark Castillo Marriage Men's rights movement Mental disorder Miami Miami-Dade County Minnesota Mother Murder of Nubia Barahona National Fatherhood Initiative National Organization for Women Natural and legal rights New York City courts Non-Custodial Parent Non-governmental organization Noncustodial parent Pam Bondi Parent Parental Alienation Parental alienation syndrome Parental Rights Parenting Parenting Differences Parenting time Parents' rights movement Phyllis Schlafly Physical Custody Political Issues Posttraumatic stress disorder Pro se legal representation in the United States Pushing for reform in the equality between men's and women's rights Pushing for reform in the equality between men's and women's rights. Race And Ethnicity Restraining order Richard A. Gardner Rick Scott Self Representation Separation Of Powers Shared parenting Single parent Social Affairs Social Issues South Florida State court (United States) Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of the United States The Florida Bar The Huffington Post The Kids Title IV Trial court Troxel v. Granville Turner v. Rogers United States United States Constitution United States Department of Justice Visitation Disputes

Freedom of speech in the United States

Freedom of speech in the United States
Congress shall make no law...

The BEST Parent is BOTH Parents!

Dads Matter - 2016 Family Law Reform

Parent and Child Contact Denial is Child Abuse

Civil Rights in Family Law

COURT ORDERED CHILD ABUSE

American Fathers

The “Best interest of the child” (BIOC) policy or doctrine is clearly unconstitutional.

Contact Denial is Child Abuse

South FL Family Law Reform

Follow Us on Pinterest

Contact Denial = Child Abuse