Greetings:
As a nurturing and loving father, and as a Nam Vet swore to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic," I have been litigating since January 27, 2003, to protect my residual parental and visitation rights in accordance with a joint custody agreement mandated protected by Federal and Virginia Code, a Treaty, and U.S. & Virginia Constitutions--against the illegal anti-fathers rights policies of the U.S. State Dept., U.S. Dept of Justice, the Federal Court, and Virginia Courts.
Thus I have recently requested both the Governor and Legislature of Virginia, President Bush, and members of Congress to direct both the Attorney General of Virginia, and the Solicitor General of the United States to file a response to my Son's and my petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court,*(("*") indicates note located below), to compel compliance of both the Executive and Judicial Branches with the mandates of Congress and the General Assembly of Virginia.**
Obviously, the assuring of compliance with the legal mandates of Congress, and the General Assembly of Virginia, protection of the residual and visitation rights of all U.S. citizen fathers is one of general policy concerns affecting the rights of all fathers and not just a question of the illegal violation of my rights as a father in this specific litigation.
I note that I wrote the President beginning in January 2002, as to DOJ and State's obstructing my visitation rights as a father, and opposed the nomination and confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts because he violated 18 U.S.C. Secs. 4, 371 and 1001, by making intentional false statements to Congress(see statement located below. See alsohttp://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror/***
Therefor the record confirm the fact that as a U.S. citizen parent whose Son has been wrongfully retained abroad in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1204, I have been placed in the worse position by the Executive and Judicial Branches of Federal Government because they do not permit my Son as a U.S. citizen return home to the U.S., or refuse to secure visitation as mandated by both Federal and State law.****
I stress that my son and my challenges to the violations of the Bush Administration, as well as the Federal and State Judiciary, is not based on any disrespect, but rather a belief in the limitations on government under our Constitution----because if the Bush Administration, and Federal and State judges, acting outside their jurisdiction and judicial capacity, can disregard the substantive rights of U.S. citizen fathers with impunity--as well as deny the ability to challenge their actions, then they have unlimited power and this in itself is a violation of the Constitution and the right of all citizens of the United States.*****
As has been stated in the past, "[u]nlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where law ends, tyranny begins."Lord Chatham (William Pitt) to the British House of Lords in January 1770 (Emphasis added).
Therefor I request that you write the Attorney General of Virginia and the Solicitor General of the United States, requesting that they file a response briefs to the motion for a TRO/PI pending before Associate Justice Paul Stevens, since the Chief Justice is disqualified, so to the Courts of Virginia to secure my Son's visit to the U.S.A. with his father for his 2006 Summer and Christmas vacations, and to the petition for certiorari.
In closing as an experienced civil rights attorney who for the past 30 years has litigated against the abuse of authority by government officials, I know that there is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice. Therefore my actions are also on behalf of all fathers who are unable to locate an attorney with the ability or strength to fight the violation of law judiciary acting outside of their jurisdiction.
I thank you beforehand for your prompt consideration.
Very truly yours,
Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez
Member of the Virginia State Bar, and Waiver Application into DC Bar pending
THE LAW OFFICES OF ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ
Northern Virginia Office contact information:
2304 Farrington Avenue
Alexandria, Virginia 22303-1520
Hard line Telephone: 703.317.0526; Telefax: 703.960.0225
Cell Phone: 703.470.1457
E-mail: isidoror@earthlink.net
South American/Caribbean Office contact information:
The World Trade Center-Barranquilla
Calle 76 No. 54-11, Suite 313
Barranquilla, Colombia, S.A.
Telephone: 011.575.360.5288/360.5291
"THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL--- IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING" Edmond Burk
Visitors can find my web Blog as to my son (URL):
----------------------
Statement of Nominee Justice John G. Roberts to position of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, August 1, 2005, to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
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.
ENDNOTES
*The precedent in support for my request is Katia Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 115 S.Ct. 2227; 132 L.Ed.2d 375 (1995), wherein the Solicitor General sided with my position, in a case I argued and won.
**Isidoro Rodriguez, and Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, et al., U.S. S.Ct Docket No. 05-1059, filed February 20, 2006, and related motions, concern my Son's and my litigation: (a) to promptly secure of my parental right to visitations under a valid Agreement as mandated by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia under VA Code Secs. 20-146.25, .29, and .35 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act,, as well as by Congress in accordance with Article 2, 11, 19, 20, 21, and 29 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 11601(a) & 11602(1) and (7) of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act; and Congressional Joint Concurrent Resolution 293 of May 23, 2000; and, (b) the awarding of monetary damages due to malfeasance in office, including by Federal and Virginia judges, by their assistance in a criminal conspiracy with the common purpose of concealing the felony of obstructing the parental rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 4, 371, 1001, & 1204.
***A motion was filed under 28 U.S.C. 455 (b)(5)(I) & (iv), disqualifying Chief Justice in participating on this case because he is a defendant, based on his violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, by making false statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding my Son's and my litigation to secure visitations.
****See Thomas A. Johnson, "The Hague Child Abduction Convention: Diminishing Returns and Little to Celebrate for Americans," NYU Journal of International Law and Politics Annual Symposium, Celebrating Twenty Years: The Past and Promise of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, New York City, February 25, 2000. See also, Foretich v. United States, Civ. Action No. 97-0929 (D.D.C. Jan 13, 2002), reversed on appeal, 351 F3d 1198 (D.C.C.A. No-02-5224, December 16, 2003)[there the courts delayed consideration of the merits of the father's claim filed in 1997, for more than four years until 2001, when the minor child had reached her 18th birthday, to declare that the father's custody rights under a court order had ended].
*****During the past 30 years as a civil rights attorney I have been litigated in the Federal Courts in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, D.C. Circuit, and Tax Court, against the stewardship of former Chief Justice Rehnquist who through his control of the U.S. Judicial Conference, has developed judicial polices that have deprived U.S. citizens of their fundamental "substantive rights," which Congress mandated protected in The Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2072(b), by his doing away with separation of power of the Executive Branch from the Judicial Branch by the fostering of the close working relationship of judges with the attorneys of the Department of Justice, and selection of judges exclusively with DOJ background, the permitting of the expansion of unlimited federal government authority over the people, the expanded use of unpublished decision, the denial of jury trials in civil actions, the expanded use of summary judgement and Magistrate Judges to decide issues of fact, the doing away with attorney's pro hoc vice practice so to control attorneys who practice in the federal bar, including by not enforcing statutory Attorney's Liens.
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?