SUIT AGAINST DOJ AND JUDGES FOR MALFEASANCE BY THE FELONY OF TREASON OF VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION
RICO/Bivens and Federal Tort Complaint Against Judge J. G. Roberts et al.
CURRENT SUIT | OPPRESSION UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW BY VIOLATION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE | Letter to Congress on the Denial of the Right to Impartial Judicial Review of Misprison of a Felony | 2008-Opposition to the Appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General of DOJ | 2008-Criminal Compalint for violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 4, 241, 242, 1513 etc. | VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF POWER BY THE COLLUSION OF THE VIRGINIA COURTS AND BOB McDONNELL | OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE | FATHER'S/SON RIGHTS | THE REASON FOR THE SUIT AND NOTICE OF FEDERAL TORT CLAIM | CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, VIOLATED 18 U.S.C. SECS. 1001 & 1204 | Court of Appeals Confirms Duty to Protect Father's Rights Under Treaty | PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION OF ABUSE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY | RICO/Bivens and Federal Tort Complaint Against Judge J. G. Roberts et al. | July 2005--Recent act by Judge J. G. Roberts and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia | August 2005 CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS | Exception to Judicial Immunity | MISC. MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ACTION AGAINST JOHN G. ROBERTS | 2005 Letter to Congress on Collusion of DOJ with Judicial Branch | NEGLIGENCE OF NCMEC | Contact Me

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Page 1 of 69

JURISDICTION AND VENUE Page 3 of 69

PARTIES Page 5 of 69

STATEMENT OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Page 8 of 69

I. U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, ICMEC AND NCMEC. Page 8 of 69

II. Isidoro’s Petition Pursuant to His Fundamental Rights Page 11 of 69

III. NCMEC et al. Page 13 of 69

IV. Patrick Stiehm, Esq. Page 14 of 69

V. Ms. Mary B. Marshall et al. Page 15 of 69

VI. Office of Consular Affairs, McCannell, Esq., and Malmborg, Esq. Page 16 of 69

VII. Proskauer Rose LLP, Warren L. Dennis, Esq., and Susan Brinkerhoff, Esq. Page 18 of 69

VIII. The Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis III, the Fourth Circuit, and Judges. Page 19 of 69

IX. Miles and Stockbridge, LLP, and Cullen, Esq. Page 22 of 69

X. Hon. Judge Richard Roberts, DC Court of Appeals and Judges. Page 22 of 69

XI. Covington & Burling, Holder, Esq. and Veta, Esq. Page 25 of 69

XII. Virginia Litigation to Secure Visitation under the Treaty and UCCJEA VA Code 20-146.25, Page 25 of 69

XIII. Circuit Judge for DC and 4th Cir. Chief Justice Rehnquist and the United States Supreme Court, Page 32 of 69

CAUSES OF ACTION Page 33 of 69

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: Civil R.I.C.O. in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (Including but not limited to 18 U.S.C. 1511 (obstructing enforcement of VA Code); 18 U.S.C. 1661 through 1668; obstructing parental rights 18 U.S.C. 1204). Page 33 of 69

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Declaratory Judgment, TRO, and Preliminary Injunction Page 46 of 69

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Page 51 of 69

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: For Violation of Due Process, Equal Protection, and Access to the Federal and State Courts (Fifth Amendment) Page 52 of 69

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Denial of Right to Petition the Government and Privacy (First and Ninth Amendments) Page 54 of 69

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983: Deprivation of Parental Rights
Page 56 of 69

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 18 U.S.C. 1204:
Deprivation and obstruction of parental rights Page 57 of 69

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses) Page 58 of 69

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) (conspiracy) Page 60 of 69

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1986 by refusing or neglecting to protect and prevent the wrongs conspired to be done to obstruct parental rights of visitation
Page 63 of 69

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Intentional infliction of emotional distress Page 64 of 69

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Business Conspiracy under Va. Code 18.2-499 and 500
Page 66 of 69

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Common Law Conspiracy Page 67 of 69

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Federal Tort Claims Act Page 67 of 69

JURY DEMAND Page 69 of 69

VERIFICATION Page 69 of 69

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. ("Rodriguez"), individually, and pursuant to VA Code 8.01-8, as father and next of friend of his now almost sixteen-old Son Master Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun ("Isidoro"), originally filed this civil rights action against the abuse of governmental authority seven hundred and seventy (770) days ago on January 27, 2003, for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the Defendant United States Department of State, and its employees ("U.S. Central Authority et al."); as well as its contractor acting at all times as an "instrumentality of government," the Defendant the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, its employees, agents and attorneys ("NCMEC et al."), to order their compliance with their ministerial duties under Article 2, 20, and 21 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction dated October 25, 1980 ("Treaty"), and Joint Congressional Concurrent Resolution 293 dated March 2000 ("Congressional Resolution") to expeditiously secure Rodriguez and Isidoro’s right of international visitations under the Joint Custody Settlement Agreement ("C&V Agreement"), prior to Isidoro’s 16th birthday on March 10, 2005.

2. Furthermore, this action originally sought damages under Bivens v. Six Unnamed Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)("Bivens"), the Federal Tort Claims Act 28 U.S.C. 2671 et al. ("FTCA"), and 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986, against the U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., for their wilful and negligent unauthorized policy and practice taught to Federal and Virginia judiciary that the Treaty usurped the fundamental Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, causing the violations of: (a) Rodriguez and Isidoro’s fundamental rights in their father/sons’ relationship since July 13, 2001; (b) Isidoro’s rights to the safety and opportunities of being in the United States and not be shanghaied to the Republic of Colombia ("Colombia") against his rights wishes on June 11, 2002; ( c ) obstruction with the lawful exercise of Rodriguez’s parental rights for more than nine hundred and forty-five (945) days in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204; and (d) Rodriguez’s Fifth Amendment right to impartial access with the Federal courts for their meaningful consideration of the constitutional challenges to the unauthorized policies and practices of both Federal implementing state and regulations, in violation of rights on the U.S. Constitution and Treaty pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), Fed.R.AppP. 44, and United States Supreme Court Rule 29.4(a) and (b).

3. Subsequent to the filing of this Complaint on January 27, 2003, with the motive of covering-up and continuing their unauthorized policy and practices, for the past 770 days the U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., have compounded their earlier violations Article III, 2, Article IV 2, and I, V, IX & XIV Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Articles 13b, 20, and 29 of the Treaty, by undertaking a conspiracy with Defendant United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ("DOJ"), and judges of both the Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia: (A) to violate 42 U.S.C. 1983 et seq., and 18 U.S.C. 1204 by obstructing the lawful exercise of Rodriguez’s parental rights, including the right to have the U.S. Central Authority and the Courts of Virginia to expeditiously secure visitations pursuant to Articles 2, 11, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, and VA Code 20-146.25, subsequent to the shanghaiing of Isidoro from the United States on June 11, 2002; (B) in violation of Article 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), U.N.T.S. No. 14668, vol. 999 (1976), p. 171 (ratified June 1992), 18 U.S.C. 4 and 241 to repeatedly conceal their unlawful acts; and ( C ) in violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68 (A), Article IV 2, and the V Amendment to the Constitution to deprive and to damage Rodriguez in his property right in his legal profession as an active member of the Virginia State Bar in good standing since 1982.

4. Therefore, Plaintiffs amend the causes of action filed on January 27, 2003.

5. Jurisdiction of this court arises under Article III 2 and Article IV 2, which extends the jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, including Amendments I, V, IX and XIV of the United States Constitution, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents,403 U.S. 388 (1971), and Title 28 U.S. Code 1331, for violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, 28 U.S.C. 2072(b), 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986, 28 U.S. C. 2403(a), and rights under the Constitution and Treaty by employees of the United States of America, and employees, agents, attorneys and volunteers of their contractor the NCMEC et al, who at all times has acted as an "Instrumentality of government."

6. Jurisdiction of this Court arises for claims arising from violations of rights guaranteed by the Treaty, Article III, 2, and Article IV 2, and the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by the Defendant Federal and Virginia judiciary acting outside of their judicial authority to deprive Rodriguez substantive rights in the lawful exercise of Rodriguez fundamental parental rights of visitations under Article 2, 20, and 21 of the Treaty, in violation18 U.S.C. 4, 241, and 1204, and 42 U.S.C. 1985, and 1986.

7. Jurisdiction of this court arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337, 1343(a), 1346(b), 1367(a), 1361 and 2401; 5 U.S.C. 702 (failure to do official act); 42 U.S.C. 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights) for violations of certain protections guaranteed by Article III 2, and the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, by the Virginia judiciary under color of law in their capacity as judges in the Supreme Court of Virginia, Court of Appeals of Virginia, Fairfax County Circuit Court, and Fairfax J&D Court, 1985(3) (conspiracy to interfere with civil rights), 1986 (neglect to prevent), 1988 (proceedings in vindication of civil rights); 18 U.S.C. 1341; 18 U.S.C. 1511 (obstructing enforcement of state law); and 18 U.S.C. ‚ 1961 (and statutes cited therein) through 1968 (RICO).

8. Jurisdiction of this court also arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671, et al., against the United States of America in both the Executive and Judicial Branch, and ICMEC and NCMEC et al, acting as an "instrumentality of government," for the ongoing illegal and negligent conspiracy in developing polices and practice and to conceal their obstruction of Rodriguez’s visitation rights in violation of Article III, 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, and Va. Code 20-146.25.

9. Jurisdiction of this court to grant declaratory and injunctive relief arises pursuant to RICO 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, as well as 28 U.S.C. 1361, Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 65(a)(2).

10. Jurisdiction of this court to grant a Writ of Mandamus to secure Rodriguez’s right of visitations arises pursuant to the Article 2 and 11 of the Treaty, Article 24 of ICCPR, and 28 U.S.C. 1651.

11. Venue is founded in this judicial district based on 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 1402, as all of the wrongful and reckless negligent acts in development and implementation of policies to disregard the Supremacy Clause, Treaty, and Va. Code 20-146.25, occurred in the District of Columbia under the control of both U.S. Central Authority et al. and the DOJ, and a substantial part of the acts of conspiracy against Rodriguez and Isidoro’s fundamental rights and rights under the Treaty occurred in this district, or within 100 miles, under the control of the U.S. Central Authority et al. , DOJ, and NCMEC et al., acting as an "instrumentality of government," the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and panel located in Northern Virginia, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the panel of the Court of Appeal of Virginia, and the Fairfax County Circuit Court, and the Fairfax County J&D Court, and their employees, agents and attorneys thereof.

12. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interests and costs, the sum of fourteen (14) million dollars for the intentional conspiracy to violate of civil rights.

13. Plaintiff Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. ("Rodriguez"), is the father of Isidoro, a U.S. citizen by birth, and a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

14. Plaintiff Isidoro Rodriguez-hazbun ("Isidoro"), is the sixteen-year-old Son of Rodriguez, is a U.S. citizen by birth, and a citizen of Virginia, and resident of the City of Barranquilla Colombia.

15. Defendant National Center for Missing & Exploited Children ("NCMEC"), is a nonprofit corporation operating in all the States acting as an instrumentality or agency of the United States.

16. Defendant the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children ("ICMEC"), is a nonprofit corporation operating as part of the NCMEC worldwide.

17. Defendant Ernie Allen, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Defendant NCMEC and ICMEC.

18. Defendant Nancy Hammer, is an employee of Defendant NCMEC.

19. Defendant Guillermo Galarza, is an employee of Defendant NCMEC.

20. Defendant Proskauer Rose LLP, is a District of Columbia law partnership.

21. Defendant Warren L. Denis, is an attorney with Proskauer Rose LLP.

22. Defendant Susan Brinkerhoff, is an attorney with Proskauer Rose LLP.

23. Defendant Miles & Stockbridge LLP, is a State of Maryland law partnership.

24. Defendant Stephen J. Cullen, is an attorney with Miles & Stockbridge LLP.

25. Defendant Patrick H. Stiehm, the attorney of record of Amalin Hazbun Escaf.

26. Defendant United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, is an Executive Department of the United States.

27. Defendant United States Department of State, is an Executive Department of the United States.

28. Defendant Office of Children Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State, is an agency of the United States.

29. Defendant Office of Legal Advisor for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State, is an agency of the United States.

30. Defendant Mary B. Marshall, was at all relevant times an employee and officer of the United States.

31. Defendant Robert McCannell, was at all relevant times an employee and officer of the United States.

32. Defendant Knute E. Malmborg, was at all relevant times an employee and officer of the United States.

33. Defendant Covington & Burling, District of Columbia law partnership.

34. Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr., is an attorney with Covington & Burling.

35. Defendant Ms. D. Jean Veta, Esq., in an attorney with Covington & Burling.

36. Defendant Supreme Court of the United State is located Washington, D.C. 20543.

37. Defendant Chief Justice William Rehnquist presides as Circuit Justice for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. and Fourth Cir.

38. Defendant U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit is located in Richmond, VA.

39. Defendant Chief Judge William W. Wilkins, presides at the U.S.C.A. 4th Cir.

40. Defendant Judge William B. Traxler, JR., presides at the U.S.C.A. 4th Cir.

41. Defendant Judge M. Blane Michael, presides at the U.S.C.A. 4th Cir.

42. Defendant U. S. Dist. Court for the E. D. of Va. is located in Alexandria, VA

43. Defendant Judge T.S. Ellis, III presides at the U. S. Dist. Court for the E. D. of VA.

44. Defendant U.S.C.A. DC Cir. is located Washington, D.C.

45. Defendant Judge Douglas, H. Ginsburg presides at the U.S.C.A. DC Cir.

46. Defendant Judge Merrick B. Garland presides at the U.S.C.A. DC Cir.

47. Defendant Judge Harry T. Edwards presides at the U.S.C.A. DC Cir.

48. Defendant Judge Karen L. Henderson presides at the U.S.C.A. DC Cir.

49. Defendant Judge Judith W. Rogers presides at the U.S.C.A. DC Cir.

50. Defendant Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., presides at the U.S.C.A. DC Cir.

51. Defendant Judge Arthur, R. Randolph presides at the U.S.C.A. DC Cir.

52. Defendant Judge David B. Sentelle presides at the U.S.C.A. DC Cir.

53. Defendant Judge David S. Tatel presides at the U.S.C.A. DC Cir.

54. Defendant U.S. Ct. Dist. for the District of Columbia is located in Washington, D.C..

55. Defendant Judge Richard Roberts presides U.S. Ct. Dist. for the District of Columbia.

56. Defendant Virginia Supreme Court is located in Richmond, VA.

57. Defendant Court of Appeals of Virginia is located in Richmond, VA.

58. Defendant Judge Rudolph Bumgardner, III presides at the Court of Appeals Virginia.

59. Defendant Judge D. Arthur Kelsey presides at the Court of Appeals Virginia.

60. Defendant Senior Judge William H. Hodges presides at the Court of Appeals Virginia.

61. Defendant the Fairfax County Circuit Court is located at Fairfax, VA.

62. Defendant Judge M. Langhorne Keith presides at the Fairfax County Circuit Court.

63. Defendant Judge Stanley Paul Klein presides at the Fairfax County Circuit Court.

64. Defendant Fairfax County J&D Dist. Ct. is located at Fairfax, VA.

65. Defendant Judge David S. Schell presides at Fairfax County J&D Dist. Ct.

66. Defendant Judge Charles J. Maxfield presides at Fairfax County J&D Dist. Ct.

67. Defendant Judge Thomas Mann presides at Fairfax County J&D Dist. Ct.

68. Defendant United States of America has waived sovereign immunity pursuant FTCA.

69. The named individual government employees and agents, as well as the unknown and unnamed individual John Doe Defendants at all times relevant to this complaint, were employed or acting as instrumentalities or agents of the United States, through various entities of the United States. When the names of the unknown and unnamed Defendants are ascertained Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the complaint to indicate the names.

 

70. The U.S. Central Authority, and DOJ are the lead agencies of the Executive Branch responsible for the promulgation of regulations and supervision for the proper administration of the Treaty in the United States---including petitions for the expedited securing of international visitation rights pursuant to Article 2, Article 11, 21, and 29 of the Treaty.

71. The NCMEC was established by Congress in 1984 as a nonprofit corporation and "instrumentality of government," receiving since 1995, millions in federal funding as a "sole source" for federal grants and awards under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Central Authority and DOJ, in return for providing services, including policy advice regarding the enforcement of the provisions of the Treaty and the teaching of its provisions to both the Federal and State judiciary, lawyers and law enforcement, and for the administrative processing of petitions under the Treaty in the United States.

72. The ICMEC was created as an instrumentality or agency of the United States, as part of NCMEC, to serve as a "focal point for hammering out strategies to address the abduction and exploitation of children in a consistent and effective manner worldwide." (Hon. Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senate, retired and Chairman of the BOD of NCMEC, June 22, 2004, regarding H.R. 4347).

73. On May 23, 2000 the Congressional Resolution reconfirmed the mandate on the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, ICMEC, and the NCMEC that the Federal and State courts are to comply with all provisions of the Treaty--including the expedited securing of international visitation rights pursuant to Article 21 of the Treaty.

74. In violation of the Treaty and the Congressional Resolution the ICMEC and NCMEC, with the approval of the U.S. Central Authority and DOJ have developed unauthorized policies and teaching material under 22 C.F.R. 94.1 et seq., designed to focus only on the Article 12 of the Treaty, and disregard the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens and their right to petition to secure the ministerial duties of the U.S. Central Authority under Article 21 and the DOJ under 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, to secure international visitation rights of citizens of the United States.

75. The U.S. Central Authority, and DOJ, have authorized and funded the ICMEC and NCMEC’s publication of reports, and training material, as well as conducted briefings, and judicial conferences wherein both the Federal and State Judges are taught to:

(a) disregard 42 U.S.C. 11603 authorization of Federal and State Courts concurrent jurisdiction to consider Treaty applications;

(b) restrict jurisdiction by the Federal Courts to consideration of petitions under the Treaty to Articles 12, regarding only the return of a child to the "habitual residence;"

( c ) disregard or limit consideration of the exception under Article 13(b) of Treaty regarding a "zone of war";

(d) disregard the exception under last 2 of Article 13(b) of Treaty so to disregard State law on the age of maturity to take account of the preference of the child;

(e) disregard consideration Article 20 of Treaty regarding the "fundamental rights" of U.S. citizens under the U.S. Constitution;

(f) disregard totally Articles 2, 21and 29 of the Treaty, so to not process any applications to secure international visitation rights in either Federal or State Courts.

76. The ABA, ICMEC and NCMEC et al., published The Hague Convention: A Curriculum for American Judges and Lawyers, http://www.abanet.org/ftp/pub/child/haguecur.doc, which at pages 70 to 72, relegated the securing of international visitation rights to the States only under the UCCJEA, and in violation of Article III 2 assumed away the U.S. Central Authority’s ministerial duty under Article 2, 20, and 21 of the Treaty.

77. Ernie Allen as President and CEO of the NCMEC and ICMEC, is responsible for and has authorized the development of above unauthorized polices which are taught to both Federal and state judiciaries, and as explained in "Good Practices In Handing Abduction Convention Return Application" by Professor Nigel Lowe and Sarah Armstrong, published in 2002 the ICMEC and NCMEC, totally disregard right under Article 21 to secure international visitation rights.

78. Based on the ICMEC and NCMEC et al., unauthorized policy the U.C. Central Authority has published 22 CFR 51, page 60811-60813, dated October 13, 2004, disregarding the U.S.. Central Authority's duty to secure visitation rights under Article 21 of the Treaty, VA Code 20-146.1-.35, and the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens to obtain a passport for their child to travel to the United States, by promulgating regulations without public comment on December 16, 2004 making it impossible for a U.S. parent to obtain a U.S. passport for their U.S. citizen child--if some non-U.S. parent objects, even if there exists a C&V Agreement or Court order.

79. On August 1, 1997 in accordance with Colombian Civil Code Title XII, Article 253 and Article 264, and VA Code 20-124.01, the C&V Agreement was entered between Isidoro's parents assuring them both their parental residual rights and responsibility for the care, control and authority to make decisions concerning Isidoro, as well as establish their visitation rights.

80. The provisions of the C&V Agreement of August 1, 1997, has neither been modified nor amended regarding Rodriguez's residual parental rights, and pursuant to both the Colombian Code and Virginia Code 20-124.1, he is a "person with legitimate interest" with standing to sue in Isidoro's name.

81. In violation of both verbal and written C&V Agreement after receipt of valuable real property Escaf cut off all communications with Rodriguez and complicated his visitation right after August 1997.

82. The Colombian Courts have refused Rodriguez repeated motions to order Escaf to comply with the terms of the C&V Agreement, and refused to listen to Isidoro's preference to be with his father.

83. After the divorce from Escaf 1997, Rodriguez in Colombia was suddenly subjected to various attempted physical attacks and robberies, as well as to various threats of kidnapping.

84. Based on the increase danger to Rodriguez in Colombia, he was forced too moved to reside full time again in Virginia, and has not returned to Colombia since August 2000.

85. In January 2001 while on Christmas vacation with his father, Isidoro expressed to Escaf and Rodriguez his desire to live in the United States with his father.

86. Escaf refused to discuss with Isidoro his desire and preference to be with his father in the United States.

87. In May 2001, the U.S. Department of State issued a Travel Warning to U.S. Citizens on Colombia, and expressly stated that the United States would not assist any U.S. citizen kidnapped in Colombia--this warning was repeatedly reissued subsequently, and most recently on January 11, 2005.

88. In June 2001 while on summer Vacation with his father Isidoro expressed his preference to live in the United States and requested that he not be force to return to Colombia.

89. Pursuant to VA Code 20-124.01, and UCCJEA VA Code 20-146.1-35, Rodriguez filed on July 13, 2001 on behalf of Isidoro, Master Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun, Petitioner, v. Ms. Amalin Hazbun Escaf, Case No. JJ-347-050-01-01, Fairfax County Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court ("Fairfax J&D Court"), to seek modification of the Joint Settlement Custody so that Isidoro could remain in the United States based on his fundamental rights as a U.S. citizen due to the increasing dangers throughout Colombia, his "best interest," the repeated breach of the C&V Agreement by Escaf, the cutting off all communications with Rodriguez by Escaf, the disregarding by Escaf of Isidoro's express preference to live with his father, and the Colombian Courts refusal to hear Isidoro's preference or compel compliance by Escaf with the terms of the C&V Agreement.

90. On or about July 30, 2001, Escaf's daughter, Ms. Mayra Escaf, met with Defendant Guillermo Galarza ("Galarza"), and other John Does of the NCMEC in Alexandria, Virginia to seek their assistance in obtaining the return of Isidoro to Colombia-despite the dangers there for U.S. citizens.

91. On or about August 7, 2001, Rodriguez had a telephone conversation with Galarza, wherein it was explained that Isidoro's litigation in the Fairfax J&D Court was based on his fundamental right as a U.S. citizen to stay in the United States out of the increasing dangers of Colombia, and his fundamental right in his preference to the society and companionship his Father, which Escaf was seeking to hinder, thus the litigation fell under the exceptions of Article 13 and 20 of the Treaty.

92. Based on the NCMEC's unauthorized policy and practice, Rodriguez's request to meet with Galarza and other staff of the NCMEC was rejected.

93. Rodriguez objected to the lack of impartially of NCMEC's refusing to consider Isidoro's rights to stay in the United States, and Galarza's violation of the prohibition on the NCMEC and its staff in acting as the attorney or fiduciary to Escaf.

94. On October 15, 2001, the Fairfax J&D Court received from the U.S. Central Authority and the NCMEC a certified mail Notice, with attachments, of Escaf's Article III Treaty petition seeking the return of Isidoro to Colombia.

95. On October 24, 2001, in a telephone conversation between Rodriguez and Defendant Nancy Hammer, Esq., she rejected the claim of Isidoro's right to stay in the United States based on his fundamental right, the Treaty and ICARA.

96. On January 3, 2002, the Fairfax J&D Court received from the U.S. Central Authority and the NCMEC a certified mail Notice, with attachments, of Escaf's Article III Treaty petition seeking the return of Isidoro to Colombia.

97. The Fairfax J&D Court had original concurrent jurisdiction to consider both Isidoro's Petition under UCCJEA VA Code 20-146.1-35, and the provisions of the Treaty based on Escaf's Notices of October 2001 and January 2002.

98. Despite the Fairfax J&D Court's original jurisdiction, based on their unauthorized policies and practices described in Paragraph 56, beginning in January 2002 to the present, the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC have conspired to make repeated misstatements of fact and law to block all discovery as to their relationship and their teaching of said unauthorized polices and practices to Federal and State Judges.

99. In or about September 2001, after various attorneys refused to provide legal services, NCMEC sought out and retained as a Defendant Patrick Stiehm ("Mr. Stiehm"), prior to his being retained by Escaf in December 2001.

100. On October 18, 2001, at the motions hearing to compel Escaf to comply with a Fairfax J&D Court order for her to provide Rodriguez with Isidoro's health and school records, Mr. Stiehm stated that he represented the NCMEC, and advised the Court that Escaf would be filing a Petition under Chapter III of the Treaty with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

101. Pursuant to the unauthorized policy and practices of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and NCMEC to usurp the original concurrent jurisdiction of the Fairfax J&D Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 11603, to consider Isidoro's petition under both Virginia's UCCJEA and the Treaty, on December 20, 2001 Stiehm filed, Amalin Hazbun Escaf vs. Isidoro Rodriguez, Docket No. CA-01-1926, Dist. Ct. E.D. VA. (Ellis III, J), containing intentional misstatements of fact and law.

102. Without any explanation the Fairfax J&D Court denied the motion to compel production of Isidoro's school and medical records, and delayed consideration of Isidoro's Petition filed on July 13, 2001.

103. Stiehm sine December 20, 2001, has in furtherance of the conspiracy has acted outside of the legitimate role of an advocate.

104. Stiehm on behalf of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC, did and has continued to conspire to make misstatements of fact and law and to disregard the fundamental rights of Rodriguez as a father and under the C&V Agreement pursuant to the Treaty and Virginia's UCCJEA, so to deny access to the Federal Courts and the Courts of Virginia.

105. During the Summer and Fall of 2001, Rodriguez by telephone gave notice to the U.S. Central Authority of Isidoro's Fairfax J&D Court action, and NCMEC, Stiehm, Hammer, and Galarza activity in a conspiracy to disregard the dangers of Colombia and violate Rodriguez and Isidoro's fundamental right as U.S. citizens.

106. Subsequently, it was disclosed that the above described unauthorized policy and practice were developed under Ms. Mary B. Marshall, to intentionally violated 42 U.S.C. 11603(a) and 11604(b), and 22 C.F.R. 94.4.96, by seeking to circumvent the Fairfax J&D Court's concurrent jurisdiction and violate Rodriguez and Isidoro's fundamental rights as a U.S. citizen by seeking to conceal all information relating to the "zone of war" exception to the application of the Treaty, including the U.S. Central Authority's Travel Warning-Colombia.

107. Based on the above acts by the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ and the NCMEC et al., Rodriguez on behalf of himself and Isidoro filed an administrative claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, on January 7, 2002 , with an amendment on September 15, 2002.

108. Notwithstanding the above stated fundamental Constitutional rights and prohibitions Marshall continues to engage in a custom, policy, or practice of disregarding the fundamental rights of United States citizens vis-a-vis their application and administration of the Treaty.

109. Subsequent to a November 5, 2001, FOIA Request letter, on February 8 and 13, 2002, Rodriguez sent a letter to the Office of Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs, Robert McCannell, and Knute E. Malmborg, regarding their conspiring to cover-up the unauthorized policy and practices of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC by failing to comply with the FOIA Request, and demanded that they comply immediately with Subpoenas from the Fairfax J&D Court.

110. Only in response to the specific expressed concerns of the Fairfax J&D Court after quashing the Subpoenas on March 8, 2002, did McCannell, and Malmborg send a letter advising that shortly some requested information would be released.

111. On March 8, 2002, Malmborg released to Rodriguez copies only in Spanish of Escaf's Treaty petition, with attachment, however, neither were the required English versions released, nor was the October15, 2001 a letter to the Fairfax J&D Court released, and nor any official U.S. State Department Country Report on Colombia, nor Warnings to U.S. citizens on Colombia and other requested information relevant to the "zone of war," nor any legal justification for the unlawful policy and practices under the Treaty which violate the fundamental rights of Rodriguez and Isidoro.

112. Upon information and belief in furtherance of the above alleged conspiracy Office of Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs, Robert McCannell, and Knute E. Malmborg, did intentionally conspire to conceal documents, make misstatements of fact and law, and provide falsely dated official documents.

113. In violation of Rodriguez's right to petition the government, Mr. Knute E. Malmborg, refused to meet with Rodriguez to discuss its failure to comply with Rodriguez's document request, or request to designate a witness, or discuss the fundamental Constitutional issues involved in the action before Judge Ellis III.

114. All of the Defendants have and continues to engage in a custom, policy, or practice of disregarding the fundamental rights of United States citizens vis-a-vis their application and administration of the Treaty.

115. In furtherance of its unlawful custom, policy or practice, and in violation of both Rodriguez and Isidoro's fundamental rights in the father/son relationship and access to the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs, Robert McCannell, and Knute E. Malmborg, U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC and their employees, agents, and attorneys intentionally conspired to deprive Rodriguez and Isidoro to equal protection and due process based on the policy against the fundamental rights of fathers.

116. Proskauer Rose LLP, Warren L. Dennis, and Susan Brinkerhoff are outside counsel for the NCMEC.

117. As outside counsel for NCMEC,Proskauer Rose LLP, Warren L. Dennis, and Susan Brinkerhoff, intentionally conspired to develop the current policy and practices in violation of the fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution, exceptions under Article 16 of the Treaty, and the duty to secure visitation rights under Articles 2, 21, and 29 of the Treaty.

118. Rodriguez on November 2, 2001, received a letter from Dennis, and Proskauer Rose LLP, intentionally disregarding both Rodriguez and Isidoro's fundamental Constitutional rights vis-a-vis the Treaty.

119. Upon information and belief, in furtherance with the conspiracy with its client NCMEC, Dennis, and law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP, until the presents have implemented the wrongful and negligent legal strategy of avoiding Isidoro's original Fairfax J&D Court suit, so to limit consideration under the Treaty pursuant to the illegal policies and practices described, in violation of Isidoro and Rodriguez fundamental Constitutional rights.

120. Despite being repeatedly informed of the nature of Isidoro's Fairfax J&D Court litigation, Proskauer Rose LLP, Dennis, and Brinkerhoff, and its client NCMEC et al., their employees and agents, conspired to use their political connection to deprive Rodriguez and Isidoro of their right to petition the government, by referring to Isidoro's Fairfax J&D Court suit action to stay in the United States, as Rodriguez's custody dispute, so to obfuscate meaningful consideration by an impartial judiciary mandated under Article III of the Constitution of Isidoro and Rodriguez fundamental rights under Amendments I, V and IX of the Constitution, as well as under Article 13b and 13, and Article 20 of the Treaty

121. Beginning in January 2002, upon information and belief, Proskauer Rose LLP, Dennis, and Brinkerhoff, assisted Stiehm in furtherance of the above referenced conspiracy, they used their connections with the law enforcement to conduct an extensive unlawful investigation of Rodriguez background, used their contacts with the media, and filed a Virginia Bar Complaint, with the purpose discrediting him.

122. Upon information and belief, Proskauer Rose LLP, Dennis, and Brinkerhoff, conspired with the NCMEC et al., to use their connections with the media to seek to discredit Rodriguez to obfuscate the Fairfax J&D Court action.

123. Notwithstanding the above stated right and prohibitionsProskauer Rose LLP, Dennis, and Brinkerhoff intentionally conspired to engage in a custom, policy, or practice of disregarding and thereby violating the fundamental rights of United States citizens vis-a-vis their application and administration of the Treaty.

124. At the February 20, 2002 hearing held on Rodriguez's motion for the Federal Court to abstain, the Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis III demonstrated both hostility and lack of impartiality to act outside of his judicial authority in disregarding the claim that the Fairfax J&D Court trial under both the UCCJEA and the Treaty set for February 25, 2002, had priority.

125. Based on the teachings of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC, the Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis III demonstrated both hostility and lack of impartiality to Rodriguez's counterclaim that neither Congress nor the Courts can deprive either him or his son of their fundamental rights as a U.S. citizen in their father/son relationship by the application of the Treaty to force Isidoro from the United States.

126. In violation of 42 U.S.C. 11603 and 28 U.S.C. 2283, the Hon. Judge Ellis III stated that he would not abstain, and that he would communicate with the Fairfax J&D Court regarding the staying of their trial scheduled for February 25, 2002, so to permit the conducting of the Federal trial before him on April 25, 2002.

127. Based on Judge Ellis' ex parte communication by telephone, letter or e-mail, the Hon. Judge David S. Schell, the Fairfax J&D Court stayed the trial under Virginia UCCJEA and Chapter III of the Treaty which was scheduled for February 25, 2002 to defer to the Federal trial set for April 25, 2002, based on his holding pursuant to the teachings of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC, that he did not have jurisdiction to consider Chapter III of the Treaty.

128. The Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis III acted outside of his judicial authority in failing to enforce the controlling fundamental rights of Rodriguez and Isidoro under Supremacy Clause and the IX amendment to the Constitution by refusing to permit Isidoro to enter as an "indispensable party," in implementing the teachings of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC to not impartially consider the exceptions under the Treaty and his duty under Article III of the Constitution, including the record of the dangers in Colombia for U.S.. citizens, the denial of the fundamental rights of Rodriguez and Isidoro by Courts of Colombia, and the violation by Escaf of the C&V Agreement.

129. The Hon. Judge Ellis III pursuant to the teaching of the policy and practices of U.S. Central Authority DOJ, and NCMEC disregarded and assumed away the Colombia Travel Warning to U.S. citizens issued by the U.S. State Department, to surreally hold that the dangers in Colombia were to only U.S. citizen adults but not to U.S. citizen children.

130. Based on the polices and practices taught by the U.S. Central Authority and the NCMEC, Rodriguez and Isidoro were deprived of their fundamental rights as a U.S. citizen by the Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis forcing Isidoro from the United States back to Colombian on June 11, 2002, Escaf v. Rodriguez, 200 F.Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2002, T.S. Ellis III, J.), surreally holding that (a) Colombia is dangerous only for U.S. adults, not U.S. children; and (b) that because there were no previous cases on the issue of enforcing the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens vis-a-vis the Treaty, the rights don’t exist based on the statements of the U.S. Central Authority.

131. In furtherance of the conspiracy, during the bench trial held on April 25, 2002, NCMEC et al., talked and sat behind Escaf to expressed obvious support to Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis III of her action against Isidoro and Rodriguez's fundamental rights.

132. On May 9, 2002, Rodriguez filed the notice of a Constitutional challenge to the application of the Treaty and ICARA with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, but in furtherance a conspiracy based on the unauthorized polices and practices of theU.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC, the United States Attorney General was not provided the Congressionally mandated notice under 28 U.S.C. 2403(a).

133. Based on the polices and practices taught by the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ and the NCMEC, to both Federal and State Judges, the U.S. Court of Appeals acted outside of its judicial authority to deprive Rodriguez and Isidoro of their fundamental rights as a U.S. citizen by issuing an unpublished decision affirming Judge T.S. Ellis III, Hazbun v. Rodriguez, 52 Fed. Appx. 204 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 02-1268, March 3, 2003).

134. Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis III, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based on the teachings of U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC, demonstrated both hostility and q lack of impartiality by repeatedly acting outside of their judicial authority to deprive Rodriguez and Isidoro of their fundamental rights, rights under the IX Amendment to the Constitution, and the Treaty.

135. On April 10, 2002,Stephen John Cullen, and the Law Firm of Miles and Stockbridge, acted as volunteers of NCMEC and in furtherance of the above alleged conspiracy based on the unauthorized policy and practices of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC.

136. On information and belief, in furtherance of the conspiracy to apply the unlawful policy and practice of the Treaty voiding the fundamental rights of Rodriguez and Isidoro under the Constitution,Miles and Stockbridge, and Cullen intentionally conspired with NCMEC to make repeated misstatements of fact and law.

137. On May 3, 2002, in an outburst opposing any stay of the application of the Treaty, Cullen stated in open court, that pursuant to the Supremacy Clause that Isidoro and Rodriguez's fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution were effectively trumped by the Treaty.

138. On May 23, 2002, after a Congressional Breakfast, Cullen received from NCMEC the Volunteer of the Year award at DOJ.

139. On April 26, 2002, in open Court Cullen stated on the record that the Treaty amended Rodriguez and Isidoro's fundamental rights.

140. In furtherance of the on going conspiracy,Miles & Stockbridge, and Cullen in addition to opposing any stays of the order of the Judge T.S. Ellis III, filed various motions with both the Fourth Circuit and the District Court, to seek the immediate arrest of Isidoro by law enforcement to force him out of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. 11604(b), and 18 U.S.C. 1204.

141. Based on the unauthorized policies and practices in enforcement of the Treaty of theU.S.. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC, which are taught to Federal and States Judges, resulting in numerous violations of Rodriguez and Isidoro's fundamental rights and rights under the Treaty, on January 27, 2003 Rodriguez and Isidoro filed an action for damages under Bivens and Federal Tort Claims Act, and for a Writ of Mandamus to the Executive Branch to expeditiously secure Rodriguez and Isidoro's right of visitation pursuant to Articles 2, and 21of the Treaty, Isidoro Rodriguez Hazbun and his father Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. vs. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children et al., DC No. 03-CV-0102 (RWR).

142. Based on motions filed by NCMEC with misstatement of fact and law, Judge Richard Roberts ("Judge Roberts") in violation of Article IV 2 and the Fifth Amendment to deny Rodriguez his right as an active Member of the Virginia State Bar in good standing since 1982, to appear pro hoc vice in representing Isidoro, and further denied Rodriguez of his right to due process and equal protection of Virginia Code 20-124.1, as a "person with legitimate interest" to appoint Mr. M. Blair Sibley, Esq., to represent Isidoro.

143. A motion to recluse Judge Richard Roberts ("Judge Roberts") was filed based on the appearance of lack of impartiality or possible conflict of interest based on Judge Roberts the fact that prior to being appointed to the Federal bench he had been employed only by either DOJ, or the NCMEC's attorneys of record, Covington & Burling.

144. The motion to recluse was denied by Judge Roberts.

145. Since the filing of the Complaint on January 27, 2003, based on the policies and practices of the U.S.. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC, Judge Robert has acted intentionally outside of his judicial authority under Article III of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, and the Treaty, by improperly staying the proceedings for more than 756 days, to comply neither with the Congressional mandate under Article 2 and 11 of the Treaty to secure Rodriguez and Isidoro's visitation rights nor by issuing a Writ of Mandamus to order U.S. Central Authority and NCMEC to comply with their ministerial duties to secure visitation rights.

146. Judge Roberts acted intentionally outside of his judicial authority under Article III of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, and the Treaty by disregarding motions filed under 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), to advise the DOJ of the challenge to unconstitutional regulations, policies and practices of theU.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and the NCMEC.

147. Judge Roberts has acted outside of his judicial authority in furtherance of the conspiracy during the past 756 days by failing to act expeditiously secure Rodriguez visitation rights pursuant to Article 2, 20, and 21 of the Treaty, and failing to issue the repeatedly requested Writ of Mandamus to the U.S. Central Authority.

148. On June 30, 2003, Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and its Judges, have acted outside of their judicial authority in dening the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, thereby not ordering Judge Roberts to expeditiously secure Rodriguez and Isidoro's visitation rights by disregarding and then stating that the petition was to be issued to Judge Roberts in the first instance, In re Master Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun, United States Court of Appeals No. 03-5092, cert. denied S. Ct. No. 04-454.

149. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and Judges, have acted outside of their judicial authority during the past 756 days by failing to act impartially as required under Article III of the Constitution in actively participating in the conspiracy based on the unauthorized policies and practices taught to them by theU.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and NCMEC, in violation of Rodriguez fundamental rights, and rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, in failing to issue the Writ of Mandamus to the Executive Branch to expeditiously secure Rodriguez and Isidoro's right of visitations pursuant to Articles 2, 21, and 29 of the Treaty.

150. Covington & Burling, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Ms. D. Jean Veta, Esq., in furtherance of the conspiracy in representing the NCMEC et al., in violation of RICO to obstruct with Rodriguez parental right to visitations pursuant to the Agreement and Articles 2, 20, 21, and 21 of the Treaty and Article 24 of ICCPR, have acted outside the proper role as attorneys to make intentional misstatements of fact and law to the Federal Courts.

151. Covington & Burling, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Ms. D. Jean Veta, Esq., in furtherance of the conspiracy in representing the NCMEC et al., in violation of RICO to obstruct with Rodriguez parental right to visitations pursuant to the Agreement and Articles 2, 20, 21, and 21 of the Treaty and Article 24 of ICCPR, have acted outside the proper role as attorneys by the intentional manipulation of contacts with media in the DC Metro area to cover-up their illegal actions.

152. Covington & Burling, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Ms. D. Jean Veta, Esq., in furtherance of the conspiracy in representing the NCMEC et al., violations of RICO to obstruct Rodriguez’s parental right to visitations pursuant to the Agreement and Articles 2, 20, 21, and 21 of the Treaty and Article 24 of ICCPR, have acted outside the proper role as attorneys by the filing of Virginia State Bar Complaint against Rodriguez in the on going efforts to discredit and deny impartial access to the Federal and State courts.

153. Based Judge Roberts continued acts outside of their judicial authority, pursuant to Article 21 of the Treaty and VA UCCJEA VA code 20-146.25, Isidoro filed with the Fairfax J&D Court on June 11, 2003, Master Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun, Petitioner, v. Amalin Hazbun Escaf, Case No. JJ-347-050-01-01, a petition to expeditiously secure his visitation rights with his father in the United States for the 2003 Summer vacation in accordance with the C&V Agreement.

154. Pursuant to Article 21 of the Treaty the NCMEC was noticed as the "instrumentality of government" in the United States responsible for processing petition for visitation.

155. On June 18, 2003 Judge Maxwell of the Fairfax J&D Court acted outside of his judicial authority by disregarding the Virginia's General Assembly mandate in Virginia's UCCJEA VA Code 20-146.25, and disregarding Article III 2 of the U.S. Constitution in not complying with Article 2, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty, as well as 42 U.S.C. 11603(a) by issuing a summary order denying the petition for visitation, and staying further proceeding "pending all proceedings U.S. District Court."

156. Pursuant to Articles 2, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, as well as VA Code 20-146.1-.35, Isidoro filed notice of appeal to the Fairfax County Circuit Court ("Fairfax Circuit Court"), to obtain de novo hearing on all issues, and filed a motion to compel expedited processing of his petition visitation by NCMEC, Master Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Amalin Hazbun-Escaf, Fairfax County Circuit Court No. C-185125.

157. On July 25, 2003 without hearing any argument the Hon. Judge Langhorne Keith of the Fairfax Circuit Court acted outside of his judicial authority by disregarding Article 21 of the Treaty to dismiss the NCMEC, and disregarded the legislative mandate to deny the motion for expedited consideration of the petition for visitation under the Treaty and Virginia UCCJEA.

158. Isidoro immediately filed a Notice of appeal of the July 25, 2004 order with the Court of Appeals of Virginia Docket No. 2004-03-4.

159. Despite the legislative mandate under the Treaty and UCCJEA, the Courts of Virginia have no procedures were in place for the conducting of expedited consideration pursuant to Article 2 and 11of the Treaty.

160. Due to the lack of expedited procedures to secure visitation rights, Isidoro filed with the Supreme Court of Virginia a VA Code 17.1-409 motion to transfer the appeal because of the importance of this first impression case under the Treaty, and the ongoing harm being done to Isidoro by the delay and disregard of his rights to transfer the action involving the first impression consideration of rights under the Treaty and Va. Code 20-146.1-35.

161. Although Respondent Escaf never responded, NCMEC filed a response in opposition to the motion to transfer containing misstatement of facts and law.

162. On September 9, 2004 based on the filing of the NCMEC the Supreme Court of Virginia issued an unpublished summary order denying Isidoro's motion to transfer.

163. On September 2003 due to the delay in preparing the record of the appeal of the order of July 25, 2003 Isidoro filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Court of Appeals of Virginia (Record No. 2758-03-4), to order the Hon. Judge Lonhorn Keith to sign the undisputed Statement of Facts in accordance with the legislative mandate for expedited consideration of rights to visitations pursuant to the Treat and UCCJEA Va. Code 20-146.25.

164. Not until three months after the filing of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, did the Court of Appeals of Virginia remand the Statement of Facts on December 3, 2003, for Judge Keith to conduct a hearing to consider Isidoro's undisputed submission.

165. Judge Keith set the hearing for January 9, 2004 to consider Isidoro’s undisputed Statement of Fact.

166. On December 15, 2004, Isidoro issued Witness Subpoenas to the NCMEC to testify at the hearing scheduled for January 9, 2004, regarding its duties under the C&V Agreement with the U.S. Central authority and DOJ, and the right of visitations under the Treaty.

167. On December 4, 2003, six months after the filing of the petition for the expedited securing of his visitation rights under Articles 2, 11, and Chapter IV of the Treaty, the Hon. Judge Stanley P. Klein of the Fairfax County Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, based on his lacking jurisdiction pursuant to VA Code 16.1-296, and held that as law of the case Patrick Stiehm was the attorney of record for Escaf, who was a party to the action.

168. Judge Klein acted outside of his judicial authority in refusing to either conduct an expedited de novo proceeding on Isidoro's petition for visitation under the Treaty or remanding the issues of visitations under the Treaty and ICARA back to the Fairfax J&D Court for expedited consideration.

169. Judge Klein denied the NCMEC motion to quash Witness Subpoenas since Isidoro had a right to have them testify as fact witnesses.

170. On January 5, 2004, despite the law of the case, Judge Keith conducted an ex parte hearing and granted the motion filed without notice by the NCMEC to quashed the Witness Subpoenas.

171. On January 9, 2004 Judge Keith acted outside of his judicial authority by disregarding Isidoro's rights under the Treaty to secure visitation, by issuing his "corrected" Statement of Facts of the July 25, 2003 without conducting any hearing, and by disregarding the "law of the case" permitting the calling of the NCMEC as a witness, so to sanction Isidoro $1,000.00 to be paid to the NCMEC for the issuance of the Witness Subpoenas.

172. A Notice of Appeals of the December 4, 2003 order, as well as of the orders of January 5 and 9, 2004 orders were filed with the Court of Appeals of Virginia Record No. 0293-04-4; and Record No. 3247-03-4, based on violation of Isidoro's fundamental rights to due process and equal protection of the laws due to the lack of impartiality of the lower courts, and the repeated violation of Isidoro's rights under Articles 2 and 11, and Chapter IV of the Treaty and ICARA.

173. On April 28, 2004 in Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children et al. No 2758-03-4 the Court of Appeals of Virginia in unpublished order denied without any explanation, the motion filed in September 2003 for expedited consideration of visitation rights under the Treaty and a motion for judicial notice of dangers of in Colombia; and, an order denying the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as to the signing Isidoro's undisputed Statement of Facts of August 5, 2003, despite the fact no hearing was held.

174. On April 28, 2004, in Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. Amalin Hazbun Escaf, Record No 2004-03-4, in an unpublished order the Court of Appeals of Virginia dismissed the appeal of the order of July 25, 2003, based on a lack of jurisdiction pursuant to VA Code 17-1.405, to review the order denying expedited considerations of visitation rights pursuant to the Treaty, VA Code 20-146.25, and review of the ex parte order dismissing the NCMEC from proceedings.

175. On June 8, 2004 in Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children et al., No 0293-04-4, in an unpublished order the Court of Appeals of Virginia again denied jurisdiction based on VA Code 17.1-405, to dismiss the appeal of the ex parte January 5, 2004 orders quashing Witness Subpoenas, and the January 9, 2004 order imposing $1,000.00 sanctions, which was paid on January 23, 2004, for issuance of Witness Subpoenas to the NCMEC.

176. On July 6, 2004, an unpublished order of the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the December 4, 2003 order denying jurisdictions pursuant to VA Code 16-1-296, and denied expedited consideration of visitation rights under the Treaty by obfuscating the previous proceeding in March through June 2002 in federal court under Chapter III with these current proceedings under Chapter IV of the Treaty, Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children et al., Record No 3247-03-4.

177. Four timely Petitions for Appeal were filed with the Supreme Court of Virginia challenging all of these unpublished orders based on violation of Isidoro's rights under the Treaty and the denial of due process and equal protection of the laws due to lack of impartiality of the lower courts, Master Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Amalin Hazbun-Escaf, Supreme Court of Virginia Record No. 041217; Record No. 041283; Record No. 041481; and, Record No. 041702.

178. On August 6, 2004, Isidoro filed a motion in accordance with Article 2 and 11 of the Treaty requesting that the Supreme Court of Virginia issue a statement for its delay in conducting expedited proceeding to secure Isidoro's visitation rights under the C&V Agreement, the Treaty, the provisions of ICARA, and Congressional Resolution.

179. On August 18, 2004, without providing an opportunity for oral argument as required by VSC Rule 5:17 and 5:19, the panel of the Supreme Court of Virginia issued four orders dismissing Isidoro's appeals under the Treaty, his right to access to the courts, and his father's right to due process and equal protection of the Virginia Code and Treaty by in summary fashion, without any previous hearing, by stating that Rodriguez's lacked standing.

180. On October 1, 2004, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied Petitions for Rehearing in Master Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Amalin Hazbun-Escaf, Record Numbers 041702, 041481; 041702; 041217; and, No. 041283.

181. On November 4, 2004 a post marked unpublished order of the Court of Appeals of Virginia was received, but dated July 6, 2004, which assess damages of $30 against Isidoro to Respondent Escaf, although filing no brief or other pleading below.

182. On November 5, 2004, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied the motion to stay issuance of the mandate pending resolution of the issues by the United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Docket No. 04-454, and Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 04-724.

183. In response to the Supreme Court of Virginia's orders outside of their judicial authority depriving Rodriguez of his parental rights in violation of the Supremacy Clause, Privilege and Immunity Clause, and the 1st, 5th, IX Amendments to the Constitution, the Treaty, ICARA, and the Virginia Code, Rodriguez filed on January 5, 2005, his petition for the expedited securing of visitations with Isidoro.

184. In furtherance of the ongoing conspiracy of the Federal and Virginia judiciary in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, the Hon. Judge Thomas Mann on January 21, 2005, struck Rodriguez’s petition for visitation under Article 2, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty and Va. Code 20-146.25, in summary fashion thereby disregarded the law of the case wherein the Fairfax Circuit Court on December 4, 2003 holding that Stiehm was the attorney for Amalin Hazbun Escaf, pending his filing a motion to withdraw, and that she was a party to the action.

185. In furtherance of the ongoing conspiracy of the Federal and Virginia judiciary in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, the Hon. Judge Thomas Mann on January 21, 2005, deprived Rodriguez of due process under the Treaty and Va. Code 20-146.1-35, by ordering that his summary order striking Rodriguez’s petition was not subject to appeal.

186. During the proceeding before the Virginia Supreme Court, the Virginia Court of Appeals, the Fairfax Circuit Court, and the Fairfax J&D Court, the NCMEC et al, through their attorneys in furtherance of the conspiracy herein alleged repeatedly were permitted to make intentional misstatements of fact and law in their filings, and used their obvious influence with these Courts to obstruct the enforcement Rodriguez’s parental rights under the Treaty and UCCJEA.

187. In May 2002, Rodriguez pursuant his fundamental rights as a father and Articles 2, 11, 13b, and 20, of the Treaty, and Congressional Resolution, Rodriguez filed a motion with Chief Justice Rehnquist, as the Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to stay Judge Ellis III’s order directing the shanghaiing Isidoro from the United States.

188. Justice Rehnquist denied the motion, but Associate Justice Sandra O’Connor granted a stay, pending a conference on June 7, 2002.

189. On June 10, 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a stay.

190. After Isidoro was shanghaied to Colombia from the United States based on the unauthorized policies and practices of the U.S. Central Authority violating the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens, and the exceptions under Articles 13b and 20 of the Treaty, Rodriguez and Isidoro have been repeatedly denied the expedited securing of his rights under the C&V Agreement by Justice Rehnquist and the United States Supreme Court between June of 2003 to the present, acting outside of their judicial authority and negligently in their supervisory role pursuant to Article III 2 to assure compliance with the Treaty by denying the Petition for Writ of Mandamus Docket No. 04-454, and Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 04-724, and disregarding: (a) 42 U.S.C. 11606; (b) Articles 2, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, 42 U.S.C. 11601(a)(4), 51 Fed. Reg. 10,513 (1986), and Congressional Resolution; ( c ) 28 U.S. C. 2403(a), Fed.R.AppP. 44, and United States Supreme Court Rule 29.4(a) and (b); Article III of the Constitution.

191. Based on the direct actions of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the United States Supreme Court acting outside of their judicial authority in violation of 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), 18 U.S.C. 2, 241, and 1204, Rodriguez’s right to the enforcement of his parental rights to visitation with Isidoro in the United States has been obstructed with for more than 956 days, since June 11, 2002.

CAUSES OF ACTION

192. Rodriguez and Isidoro repeats and realleges and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 191 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

193. On or about the dates and locations listed below, the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, NCMEC et al., INMEC, Covington & Burling, Eric H. Holder Esq., D. Jean Veta, Esq., the United States of America, and John Doe, The Supreme Court of the United State, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as Circuit Justice for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. and Fourth Cir., United States Court of Appeal, for the Fourth Circuit, Chief Judge William W. Wilkins, Judge William B. Traxler, Jr., Judge M. Blane Michael, U. S. District Court for the E. D. of Va, Judge T.s. Ellis, Iii, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Douglas, H. Ginsburg, Judge Merrick B. Garland, Judge Harry T. Edwards, Judge Karen L. Henderson, Judge Judith W. Rogers, Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., Judge Arthur, R. Randolph, Judge David B. Sentelle, Judge David S. Tatel, United States Court District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Richard Roberts ("Federal Court and Judges"), The Virginia Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Judge Rudolph Bumgardner, Iii, Judge D. Arthur Kelsey, Senior Judge William H. Hodges, the Fairfax County Circuit Court, Judge M. Langhorne Keith, Judge Stanley Paul Klein, the Fairfax Court Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court, Judge David S. Schell, Judge Charles J. Maxfield, Acting Judge Thomas Mann ("Virginia Courts and Judges"), did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious two or more predicate intentional acts with the intent of obstructing the lawful exercise of Rodriguez’s parental rights, including the right of securing visitations subsequent to Isidoro being shanghaied to Colombia. in violation of Article III, 2 and Article IV 2 and the IX Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1204, with the intent to deprive Rodriguez of his property and profession by means of acting outside the scope of their authority and outside their judicial authority by false and fraudulent pretenses, intentional misstatements of fact and law, for the purposes of executing such conspiracy, schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 ( c ), in furtherance of their objective against Rodriguez’s fundamental rights and rights of visitations with his Son, Isidoro pursuant to the Agreement in accordance with Articles 2, 11, 13b, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty, UCCJEA VA Code 20-146.25, the I, V, IX, and XIV Amendments.

194. Above Defendants unlawful overt acts, include, but are not limited to, communicating by mail, e-mail, telephone wire, judicial conferences, published material, memo, orders, docket sheets, and notes to:

(A) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., using their influence on the Federal Courts and Judges and the Virginia Court and Judges, have conspired with DOJ to deny Rodriguez of due process and equal protection of the U.S. Constitution, to secure his parental rights of visitations under the Custody Agreement in accordance with Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty;

(B) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., have conspired with Federal Courts and Judges and Virginia Court and Judges in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, and 241, as well as 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), to conceal their criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. 1204, to deprive Rodriguez of his parental rights under the Custody Agreement, fundamental rights under the Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia Constitution, and Article 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty;

( C ) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., conspiring with both the Federal and State judiciary and the DOJ to illegally deprive Rodriguez of meaningful access to an impartial judiciary under Art. IV of the U.S. Constitution, and Amendments I, V, IX & XIV, to deny him of his rights under Article 2, 21 and Article 29 of the Treaty, Congressional Resolution, and VA Code 20-146.1-35;

(D) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., conspiring with both the Federal and State judiciary and the DOJ to deprive Rodriguez of his fundamental rights under the Privilege and Immunity Clause Article IV, 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and V Amendment, to grant his motion Pro Hoc vice so to represent Isidoro in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to enforce his rights under Articles 2, 20 and 21 of the Treaty, based on Rodriguez being an experience federal litigation attorney and Active Member of the Virginia State Bar in good standing since 1982;

(E) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., and Covington and Burling, Eric H. Holder, Esq., and D. Jean Veta, Esq., caused conducted an unlawful "Orwellian" investigation by DOJ and State law enforcement so to conceal the violation by both Federal and State judiciary of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, and to deprive Rodriguez of his 1st Amendment rights to petition government to redress grievances;

(F) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., and Covington and Burling, Eric H. Holder, Esq., and D. Jean Veta, Esq., caused unlawfully conducting a campaign to falsely discredit Rodriguez’s reputation and business to conceal the violation by both Federal and State judiciary of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, and to deprive Rodriguez of his 1st Amendment rights to petition government to redress grievances;

(G) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., and Covington and Burling, Eric H. Holder, Esq., and D. Jean Veta, Esq., used their contacts and influence with the news media so to prevent publication of information regarding acts unfavorable to the image of the ICMEC and NCMEC, to conceal the violation by both Federal and State judiciary of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, and to deprive Rodriguez of his 1st Amendment rights to petition government to redress grievances;

(H) U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, and the NCMEC et al., and Covington and Burling, Eric H. Holder, Esq., and D. Jean Veta, Esq., intentionally made false statements of fact and law to the Legal Times of Washington in April 2003, to obfuscate and conceal the violation by both Federal and State judiciary of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, and to deprive Rodriguez of his 1st Amendment rights to petition government to redress grievances for the violation of Rodriguez’s rights under Articles 2, 20, 21 and 29, of the Treaty to have the Executive Branch secure international visitation rights with Isidoro in the United States;

(I) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., and Covington and Burling, Eric H. Holder, Esq., and D. Jean Veta, Esq., filed false allegations in a Virginia State Bar Complaint in October 2003, to obfuscate and conceal the violation by both Federal and State judiciary of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, and to deprive Rodriguez of his 1st Amendment rights to petition government to redress grievances for the violation of Rodriguez’s rights under Articles 2, 20, 21 and 29, of the Treaty to have the Executive Branch secure international visitation rights with Isidoro in the United States;

(J) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., Covington and Burling, Eric H. Holder, Esq., and D. Jean Veta, Esq., using their political influence with the Office of the Alexandria Bar Counsel, Virginia State Bar, for her to continue to conduct an ongoing investigation for more than 18 months since October 2003, despite the total lack of evidence of any wrong or unethical acts by Rodriguez, so to have a chilling effect on his 1st Amendment right to petition the Federal and State legislative branch for an investigation of violations of both Federal and Virginia statutes and the Treaty.

(K) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., 18 months after the filing of the instant Complaint, abusing the public trust and funds to obtain the passage of "International Assistance to Missing and Exploited Children Act of 2004" H.R. 4347 in July 2004, to seek immunity for the NCMEC et al. intentional ongoing conspiracy in violation of Rodriguez’s rights under Articles 2, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty, and 12 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204; and,

(L) U.S. Central Authority et al. and the NCMEC et al., conspiring with both the Federal and State judiciary and DOJ to violate Rodriguez civil rights under Virginia Code and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986.

(M) the Virginia Courts and Judges to act outside of their judicial authority by staying since January 2002, all proceeding in furtherance of the conspiracy to disregard the unlawful polices and practices of the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, and NCMEC et al., in violation of their concurrent jurisdiction and Rodriguez and Isidoro’s fundamental rights as citizens of the United States and the Treaty;

(N) the Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis III, Hon., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States, to act outside of their judicial authority in furtherance of the conspiracy to disregard the unlawful polices and practices of the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, and NCMEC et al., that violate Rodriguez and Isidoro’s fundamental rights as citizens of the United States so to permit the shanghaiing of Isidoro to Colombia, knowingly putting him in "harm’s way" and depriving Isidoro of the rights and privilege of his U.S. citizenship;

(O) the Hon. Judge Richard Roberts, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States, to act outside of their judicial authority in furtherance of the conspiracy so to disregard since January 27, 2003 the unlawful polices and practices of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and NCMEC, in violation of Rodriguez and Isidoro’s rights under Article 2, 11, and 21 of the Treaty to have them secure Isidoro’s rights of visitations;

(P) by Hon. Chief Judge William Rehnquist, in his capacity as Circuit Judge of the 4th Cir. and DC Cir. Courts of Appeal in acting outside of his judicial authority in furtherance of the conspiracy not taking corrective action since June 2001, but instead permitted the lower Federal Courts and Judges and Virginia Courts and Judges to disregard the unlawful polices and practices of the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, ICMEC, and NCMEC et al., in violation of Rodriguez and Isidoro’s rights under Article III 2 and Article IV 2 of the Constitution and Article 2, 11, 13b, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, with the intent of obstructing the lawful exercise of Rodriguez’s parental rights, including the right of securing visitations in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1204, subsequent to Isidoro being shanghaied to Colombia.

195. In furtherance of their object, Defendants did two or more overt acts against the plaintiffs. Those unlawful overt acts include, but are not limited to, the facts outlined in Count 2, civil RICO claim.

196. The United States Supreme Court, the Virginia Supreme Court, the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia are liable for the acts of their Judges, and if not liable for their own involvement in the conspiracy as co-conspirators acting outside of their judicial authority, they are liable for the Judges acts under the doctrine of respondent superior.

197. Beginning in or about August 2001, and continuing until the present, Defendants, and known and unknown co-conspirators have engaged in racketeering activity as described in 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1) involving violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a) (b) ( c ) (d), 152, 1951, 1503, 1512, 1956, 1957, 1341, 1343, 2315, 1952, and 15 U.S.C. 77(g) and acquired and maintained directly and indirectly in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 as defined in U.S.C. 1961 an interest in and ultimately absolute control of the enterprise.

198. In violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961 (5), the pattern of activities as set forth in the proceeding allegations and the counts below began on or about October 2001 and continue through the present, defining a continuous ongoing pattern of numerous predicate R.I.C.O. violations within ten (10) years of each other.

199. In violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961 (4), the enterprise (victim or prize) was to deprive Rodriguez of his property and ability to challenge and disclose the unauthorized practices and policies under Article 12 of the Treaty by Defendants in violation of the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens pursuant to the I, V, IX, and XIV Amendments and Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty.

200. Defendants are "persons"within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961 (3).

201. U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, ICMEC, and the NCMEC et al., are an "enterprise" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961 (4) and is engaged in implementations of the provisions of the Treaty, and its activities affect, interstate commerce.

202. From in or about October 2001 and continuing to the present, Defendants received income, derived directly and indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1) and as set forth in paragraphs above, and used and invested, directly and indirectly, part of such income and the proceeds thereof in the acquisition of an interest in and in the operation of ICMEC and the NCMEC, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a) (b) ( c ) (d), ultimately conspiring to deprive Rodriguez and Isidoro’s of their property and rights under Article III 2 and Article IV 2 of the Constitution and Article 2, 11, 13b, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, with the intent of obstructing the lawful exercise of Rodriguez’s parental rights, including the right of securing visitations in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1204, subsequent to Isidoro being shanghaied to Colombia.

203. The enterprise directly benefitting from the conspiracy was the U.S. Central Authority et al, DOJ, ICMEC, and the NCMEC et al., Federal Courts and Judges, and Virginia Courts and Judges, by being permitting the unlawful reallocation (a) the million of dollars by the noncompliance with Article 13b, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty; (b) the spending on domestic and international judicial conferences to teach the unauthorized practices and policies by invited judges and attorneys at the cost of the U.S. taxpayer, and ( c ) spending of millions of dollars on the cost of salaries for staff to administer said unlawful policies and practices.

204. Defendant Federal Courts and Judges, specifically Judge Richard Roberts and the U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the District of Columbian, by conspiring refusing to receive reports of the unlawful policies and practices in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1204 to obstruct and deprive Rodriguez of his parental rights in furtherance of unlawful policies and practices which was perpetuated by the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, ICMEC, and the NCMEC et al, offered under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. 4, did obstruct justice commencing on January 27, 2003, when Rodriguez filed federal lawsuits under Article 2 and 21 of the Treaty to secure his visitation rights in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1361 (ordering a federal official to perform his duty and halt his unlawful acts).

205. The Federal Courts and Judges, and Virginia Courts and Judges, in furtherance of the conspiracy deliberately and intentionally ignored rights under Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, VA Code 20-146.1-35, in both Isidoro and Rodriguez’s underlying case in both Federal and State Court, so to deprive for more than 1000 days Isidoro returns to the United States.

206. Rodriguez suffered harm and damages as a direct result of the acts of conspiracy to deprive Rodriguez and Isidoro’s of their property and rights under Article III 2 and Article IV 2 of the Constitution and Article 2, 11, 13b, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, with the intent of obstructing the lawful exercise of Rodriguez’s parental rights, including the right of securing visitations in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1204, subsequent to Isidoro being shanghaied to Colombia.

WHEREFORE, Rodriguez and Isidoro demands (a) seek a declaratory judgment, a temporary restraining order, and permanent injunction pursuant to RICO 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), to declare pursuant to Article III, 2 of Constitution that the provisions of "International Assistance to Missing and Exploited Children Act of 2004" S. 2202 and H.R. 4347, as well as 22 C.F.R. 94.1 et seq., and 22 C.F.R. 51, page 60811-60813, dated October 13, 2004, that conflict with Rodriguez’ rights to have the U.S. Central Authority secure his rights of international visitations under Article 1, 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, as unconstitutional.

(b) seek a Writ of Mandamus 28 U.S.C. 1361, to direct the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, and the NCMEC et al., to immediately expeditiously secure Rodriguez and Isidoro right to visitations in the United States pursuant to Articles 2, 20, and 21 of the Treaty.

( c ) to seek a Writ of Mandamus 28 U.S.C. 1361, to direct the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, and the NCMEC et al., to immediately cease and desists imparting to both the Federal and Virginia judiciary their unlawful policies and practices in violation of the fundamental rights of citizens of the United States to have an impartial judiciary under Article III, 2 of the U.S. Constitution, to enforce Article 2, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty.

(d) to seek a Writ of Mandamus 28 U.S.C. 1361, to direct the Defendant Federal Courts, and Judges, specifically the Hon. District Judge Richard Roberts, to cease and desist in acting outside their judicial authority Articles III, 2 of the U.S. Constitution, by not enforcing or implementing Rodriguez’s rights of international visitations under Article 2, 20, and 21of the Treaty, and stop damaging Rodriguez property right in his profession;

(e) seek a declaratory judgment, a temporary restraining order, and permanent injunction pursuant to RICO 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), to enforce Article III, 2 of the Constitution, as well as pursuant to V & XIV Amendment, the Treaty and Writ of Mandamus 28 U.S.C. 1361, to direct the Virginia Courts and Judges, specifically acting Judge the Hon. Thomas Mann of Fairfax J&D Court, to cease and desist their acts outside of their judicial authority violating Rodriguez’s rights of international visitation under Articles 2, 20, and 21of the Treaty, and UCCJEA Va Code 20-146.25, and expeditiously secure Rodriguez and Isidoro’s right to visitation prior to March 10, 2005, and thereafter until Isidoro is 18 years old in accordance UCCJEA, and stop damaging Rodriguez property right in his profession

(f) seek a Writ of Mandamus pursuant to the Supremacy Clause to the U.S. Central Authority and the NCMEC et al., acting at all times as an "instrumentality of government," to process the visitation order of the Fairfax J&D Court by communicating with the Central Authority of Colombia for them to secure prior to March 10, 2005 Rodriguez and Isidoro’s visitation rights pursuant to Article 2, 20 21 and 29 of the Treaty and UCCJEA VA Code 20-146.25.

(g) seek a Writ of Mandamus ordering DOJ to investigate violation of and to enforce the provisions of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA)(18 USC 1204) and 18 U.S.C. 4, and 241, based on the unlawful conspiracy to obstruct the lawful exercise of Rodriguez's parental rights by shanghaiing Isidoro from the United States to Colombian, by the ongoing judicial cover-up and "stonewalling" in support of the unauthorized practices and policies taught to them by U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ and the NCMEC et al., and the on going conspiracy to retain Isidoro outside the United States by depriving Rodriguez and Isidoro of their rights to international visitation pursuant to Articles 2, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty and Va Code 20-146.25;

(h) seek damages for civil the ongoing RICO conspiracy to damage Rodriguez in his business and profession while violating Rodriguez’s parental rights under the U.S. Constitution, Treaty VA Code 20-146.1-35, so to cover-up th unlawful policies and practices of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, NCMEC et al., taught to both the Federal and Virginia judiciary for them to act outside their judicial authority;

(i) seek damages for common law conspiracy for all acts outside the scope of employment and outside of judicial authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Treaty, VA Code 20-146.1-35, 18 USC 4, 241 and 1204;

(j) seek damages for violation of the First Amendment right as well as right under the Treaty of Rodriguez individually, and as father and next of friend of Isidoro to petition the government for a redress of grievances for the obstruction of the lawful exercise of Rodriguez's parental rights under the Custody Agreement, Treaty, Laws of Colombia, and VA Code 20-146.1-35;

(k) seek damages for violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of due process and equal protection under the Custody Agreement, Treaty, Laws of Colombia, and VA Code, denied to Rodriguez, individually, and as father and next of friend of Isdoro, since July 13, 2001;

(l) seek damages for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3) (conspiracy to interfere with civil right) and Bivens for the deprivation of Rodriguez’s fundamental parental rights protected under the IX Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Treaty;

(m) seek damages for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1986 (conspiracy to neglect to prevent conspiracy to violate civil rights) and Bivens for the deprivation of Rodriguez and Isidoro’s fundamental rights as citizens of the United States in their father/son relationship confirmed by the IX and XIV Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Treaty, since Isidoro’s shanghai and ongoing conspiracy to not enforce international visitation rights under Articles 2, 20, 21 and 2 of the Treaty and Va Code 20-145.25;

(n) seek damages for the conspiracy to violate the Article III, 2 of the Constitution by the intentional development of policies and practices taught to the Federal judiciary by the U.S. Central Authority and the NCMEC et al., to act outside their judicial authority and disregard the enforcement of the exception to the application of Article 12 of the Treaty, and the securing of international visitation rights under Article 2, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty;

(o) seek damages for the Bivens violation of fundamental Constitutional rights as a result of the unlawful shanghaiing of Isidoro on June 11, 2002 to Colombia against his and his father’s wishes by the Hon. T.S. Ellis III and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit acting outside their jurisdiction in furtherance of the unlawful policies and practices of the U.S. Central Authority , DOJ, and the NCMEC et al.;

(p) seek damages for violation of rights under Article III, 2 of the Constitution for the intentional development of policies and practices taught to the judiciary for them to disregard the enforcement of Article 2, 11, 20 and 21 of the Treaty, and Virginia UCCJEA VA Code 20-146.1-35, as well as disregard the express intent of Congress in Joint Concurrent Resolution 293, and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia in enaction in 2001 VA Code 20-145.1-35, so that the Federal and Virginia Courts have acted outside of their judicial authority in refusing for more than 945 days to provide any impartial consideration of Rodriguez and Isidoro's petitions to secure international visitation rights in the United States away from the dangers in Colombia;

(q) to seek damages for violation of rights under the 1st and 5th Amendment to the Constitution to have access to an impartial Federal and State judiciary to secure rights and petition for redress of grievances against government for the deprivation of fundamental rights and rights under the Treaty;

( r ) seek damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress by the malicious and negligent acts causing the unlawful shanghaiing of Isidoro from the United States to Colombian and the on going conspiracy to cover-up and retain Isidoro outside the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of Rodriguez's parental rights, and depriving Isidoro his birth rights of being a citizen of the United States; and,

(s) seek damages in accordance with the Federal Tort Clams Act, and Judgment, including interest from October 2001, against Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and further demands Judgment, including interest, against each of said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

 

207. Plaintiffs repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 206 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

208. There is an actual controversy, to wit, given the failure and continued acts of the Defendants to violate Rodriguez’s rights under Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, as well as UCCJEA Va. Code 20-146.25, to secure his visitation rights with Isidoro.

209. Upon information and belief during the months of August and September 2001, based on the unauthorized policies and practices of the U.S. Central Authority and DOJ, prior to the filing of any Treaty Application by Escaf, the NCMEC et al., and other unnamed and unknown John Does began conspiring to act as fiduciary and/or attorneys for Escaf in violation of the prohibition of 22 C.F.R. 94.4, and in total disregard of both Rodriguez and Isidoro’s fundamental rights as citizens of the United States.

210. Upon information and belief, in furtherance of the unauthorized policy and practice of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and NCMEC on September 27, 2001, Galarza, and other as yet unknown and unnamed employees of NCMEC, violated 42 U.S.C. 11603(a) and 11604(b), to serve as the fiduciary of Escaf by exerting influence and conducting ex parte communications wit the Fairfax J&D Court to delay any consideration of Isidoro’s petition filed on July 13, 2001.

211. Sometime after October 2002, NCMEC, Galarza, Hammer, and other unknown and unnamed John Does, did intentionally falsify official documents in order to attempt to show postdated involvement subsequent to the filing of Treaty Petition to conceal their unlawful conspiracy to act as a fiduciary on behalf of Hazbun during the months of August, September, October, November, and December 2001.

212. Upon information and belief, in furtherance of the above described unauthorized policy and practices, as yet unknown and unnamed persons of the NCMEC et al., surreptitiously removed from the Fairfax J&D Court their Treaty notices of October 2001 and January 2002, so to obfuscate the Fairfax J&D Court concurrent jurisdiction to consider Escaf’s Treaty petition.

213. In response to Isidoro’s discovery request, before the Fairfax J&D court both the U.S. Central Authority and the NCMEC made intentional misstatement of fact and law to block production of information regarding their policies and practices in violation of the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens.

214. The record discloses a pattern and practice by the Federal Courts in violation of Article III of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the Treaty, but in furtherance of the unlawful policy and practice of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ the NCMEC, their employees, attorneys, outside counsels, and agents, so to disregard and frustrate meaningful access to the Federal and State court for impartial consideration of Rodriguez and Isidoro’s fundamental rights and rights of the exceptions under the Treaty, by disregarding Rodriguez residual parental rights guaranteed by the Joint Custody Settlement Agreement entered into and unchanged since August 1, 1997, and disregard Isidoro’s preference as a mature 13-year-old boy capable of deciding that in his "best"he wanted to reside in the United States with his father away from the dangers in the expanding "zone of war" throughout Colombia.

215. Based on the unlawful policies and practices taught by the U.S. Central Authority and the NCMEC et al., to both Federal and State judges, in violation of their duty under Article III of the Constitution to be impartial, the Judicial Branch has totally disregarded their duty under 28 U.S.C. 2403(a) and 28 U.S. C. 1204 to assume away Rodriguez and Isidoro’s fundamental rights in their father/sons’ relationship and the rights of U.S. citizenship preserved under Article IX of the Constitution that prohibited both the Court and Congress from being permitted to order.

216. If this controversy is not resolved, and the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, and the NCMEC have shown that they are not willing to resolve it in accordance with the requirements of the Treaty and the UCCJEA, there will be further litigation.

217. The First and Ninth Amendments of the United States Constitution have a clearly established substantive component that provides for the right to meaningful petitioning of government for grievances so to assure actions within the federal "scope of authority." as here under Article 21 of the Treaty

218. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article 20 of the Treaty have a clearly established substantive component that provides heightened protection against government interference with Rodriguez’s fundamental right to protect and educate his Son, Isidoro.

219. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article 20 of the Treaty, as well as Article 24 of ICCPR, have a clearly established substantive component that provides a child with a fundamental right to have his liberty and welfare interest meaningfully considered.

220. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution have a clearly established substantive component that provides due process protection in the society and companionship of the father/sons’ relationship.

221. The Fifth and Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution have clearly established substantive component which prohibits the government from depriving a United States citizen by birth of his liberty, security, benefits, and opportunities.

222. It is clearly established that the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution which are designed to protect the individual right from government infringement apply to all departments and agencies of the federal government, including the courts.

223. It is clearly established that the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution are supreme to the application of the Treaty.

224. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution have a clearly established substantive component that in certain limited circumstances the Constitution imposes on the government affirmative duties of care and protection with respect to a particular individual when the government increases or create the danger that results in harm to the individual.

225. Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, Article 29 of the Treaty, and 42 U.S.C. 11603, there is a clearly established substantive component that provides access to the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which have concurrent original jurisdiction of actions under the Treaty.

226. Pursuant to Art. 7(f) and (g) of the Treaty, 51 Fed. Reg. 58, 10504 (1984), and 22 C.F.R. 94.4, the U.S. Central Authority is prohibited from acting as an agent or attorney or in any fiduciary capacity in legal proceedings arising under the Treaty.

227. Pursuant to the Article 21 of the Treaty, and Congressional Resolution 293, U.S. Central Authority must secure the visitation rights of Rodriguez with Isidoro.

228. Notwithstanding the above stated right and prohibitions the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and NCMEC, have and continues to engage in unauthorized policy, or practice of disregarding and thereby violating the fundamental rights of United States citizens and Article 2, 20 and 21 of the Treaty regarding their ministerial duty to secure visitation Rodriguez and Isidoro’s rights.

229. In furtherance of its unlawful policy or practice, and in violation of both Rodriguez and Isidoro’s fundamental rights in the father/son relationship and right of access to the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, and NCMEC, employees and agents intentionally conspired to deprive Rodriguez and Isidoro to their rights to equal protection and due processes by making intentional misstatements of fact and law, and using their influence to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights to secure visitations pursuant to UCCJEA Va. Code 20-146.25.

230. Rodriguez contends that the unauthorized policy and practice are unconstitutional.

231. The Defendants contend otherwise but they only pick and choose which part of the Treaty and implementing statute they will obey, in violation of the Constitution and Treaty.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Isidoro pray this Court issue equitable relief as follows demands a declaratory judgment that:

a. Issue injunctive relief commanding Defendants to cease and desist their unauthorized policies and practice which violate Rodriguez’s fundamental rights and Article 2, 13, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty, and UCCJEA Va. Code 20-146.25, in complying with their duty to secure visitations.

b. Issue declaratory relief in that U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, NCMEC, Federal and Virginia Courts, pursuant to Article 21 of the Treaty, and UCCJEA 20-146.25 have the ministerial and judicial duty to immediate secure Rodriguez’s visitation rights;

c. Issue other relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

d. Award plaintiffs his costs of litigation.

232. Plaintiffs repeat and realleges and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 231 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

233. On June 10, 2002, as a direct result of the negligent and willful violation of their duty under the United States Constitution, the Treaty, and its own internal rules and regulations, the United States Department of State, and its subagencies, did act affirmatively to increase and/or create the danger that Isidoro as a 16-year-old United States citizen presently is in by conspiring as above hereto described so to permit the shanghaiing of Isidoro to Colombia, i.e. "State Endangerment."

234. This intent to harm Rodriguez and Isidoro, or at best recklessness or gross negligence by placing Isidoro in Colombia places a constitutional duty to protect Isidoro due to the U.S. State Department’s Country Report recognizing the heightened danger there.

235. United States Department of State has failed in its duty to assure access and unimpeded communication with Isidoro so to maintain the father/sons’ relationship while Isidoro is forced to be in Colombia.

236. Because the affirmative conducts to create the danger that has resulted in the harm to Isidoro, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1361, the District Court can direct the United States Department of State to perform its duty to Isidoro to protect him and bring him back to the United States.

WHEREFOR, Rodriguez and Isidoro request this Court to:

(a) Declare that the United States State Department owes a duty to Isidoro since it assisted in the shanghaiing of Isidoro to Colombia against his will and rights as a United States citizen

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to United States Department of State based on the "State Endangerment" doctrine since there is a duty owed to Isidoro to both keep him safe while in Colombia, assure access and unhindered communication with Isidoro, and to seek pursuant to Isidoro’s wishes and rights his immediate return to the United States;

( c ) award costs and attorneys’ fees; and,

(d) award Rodriguez and Isidoro any other relief deemed necessary and proper.

 

237. Plaintiffs repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 236 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

238. This is a claim of violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, due to Defendants "bad motive"and conspiracy to deny due process, equal protection of the law, and access to the Courts so to surreptitiously through legal sophistry use the Treaty to supercede the fundamental rights of both Rodriguez as Father, and Isidoro as a Son in their respective society and companionship, and their rights as U.S. citizens to be safe and remain in the United States without government interference pursuant to the Constitution, and thereby forcible remove Isidoro from the United States to Colombia, despite the dangers there to Rodriguez and Isidoro as U.S. citizens.

239. It is presumptively unconstitutional, a violation of due process and access to the courts to conspire to use political clout with the federal courts and to systematically take official action design to frustrate Isidoro suit in the Fairfax Family Court seeking to consider both rights under the Constitution and under Articles 13b, and 20 of the Treaty, and Rodriguez rights under the same.

240. Despite being on notice of the claims of both Rodriguez and Isidoro based on their fundamental rights as U.S. citizens, Defendants conspired though the use of political clout and discriminatory action to both obfuscate and deprive Plaintiffs of a meaningful hearing by falsifying and not providing witnesses and documents of the United States Department of State as to increasing danger and "zone of war" Colombia.

241. In furtherance of the conspiracy of denying Rodriguez and Isidoro access to the Courts, Defendants in July 2002, sought without success to have Isidoro’s Fairfax Family Court action dismissed.

242. Declaratory and injunctive relief will prevent injury to Plaintiffs and other United States citizens who have a right to the society and companionship in the father/son’s relationship, and access to the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, so to not be forced from the United States in the future, and absent said relief, future injury is likely to recur.

WHEREFORE, Rodriguez and Isidoro request the Court to:

(a) pursuant to the Privilege and Immunity Clause, Article IV 2, and the V Amendment of the Constitution, enter an order granting Rodriguez’s Motion Pro Hoc Vice to represent Isidoro in this litigation in Federal Court, based on his being an active member of the Virginia State Bar since 1982 in good standing, and an experienced federal litigation attorney for more than 22 years, or in the alternative grant the motion Mr. Montgomery Blair Sibley, Esq., to enter an appearance for Isidoro pursuant to Rodriguez right under VA Code 8.01.8, because to do otherwise would be to deny both Rodriguez and Isidoro access to the court;

(b) declare that Defendants conspiracy has violated the due process, equal protection, access to the courts, and liberty interest in the society and companionship guarantees of the father/son’s relationship and access to the courts under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

( c )enter judgement in favor of Rodriguez and Isidoro against Defendants;

(d) enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from engaging in use of unauthorized policies and practices to supercede the fundamental rights of the society and companionship of the father/son’s relationship, and access to the courts as described herein; retain jurisdiction of this case to monitor implementation of the injunction entered against Defendants;

(e) award damages to compensate Rodriguez and Isidoro for their injuries in the amount of $1,000.000.00 million;

(f) award punitive damages against all Defendants, and a number of unnamed and unknown employees, agents, and John Does, to punish and deter them, and other, from conspiring in the future to frustrate access to the State court, so to force a United States citizen from the United States in violation of their fundamental Constitutional rights vis-a-vis the furtherance of the conspiracy to trump said rights by the Treaty.

(g) award Rodriguez and Isidoro prejudgment interest;

(h) award costs and attorney’s fees; and,

(i) award Rodriguez and Isidoro any other relief deemed necessary and proper.

 

243. Plaintiffs repeat and realleges and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 242 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

244. This is a claim for violation of the First and Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

245. Defendants undertook a Constitutional conspiracy to frustrate, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize and otherwise suppress, punish and chill Rodriguez and Isidoro right to petition the government regarding the ongoing violation of their fundamental rights in the father/son’s relationship, access to the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and to this end did shanghai Isidoro to Colombia on June 10, 2002.

246. Defendants in furtherance of their conspiracy did endeavor to cause Rodriguez to be seen and branded in the public mind as likely to be violent, so that his attempts to protect Isidoro from the "war zone" in Colombia would be hidden and the Fairfax Family Court and would be discouraged in exercising his rights under the Constitution, and the Treaty.

247. Defendants in furtherance of their conspiracy did falsely describe Rodriguez, and caused him to be portrayed, as having filed the Fairfax Family Court action in violation of the divided custody agreement with Hazbun and the Treaty.

248. Defendants in furtherance of their conspiracy did continual animus toward Rodriguez so to deny his petitioning the government by denying meeting and communicating with Rodriguez, falsify official documents and limiting access except through the most complicated and time-consuming methods, while pushing for an expedited procedure in the federal Treaty litigation so to shanghai Isidoro to Colombia on June 11, 2002.

WHEREFORE, Rodriguez and Isidoro request the Court to:

(a) declare that the Defendants have violated the Constitutional protections guaranteed by the First and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution, and Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty.

(b) enter judgement in favor of Rodriguez and Isidoro and against Defendants;

( c ) enter a permanent injunction requiring that practices and policies be adopted in accord with the requirements of the First and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution, so to assure the right of petitioning the government and the protection from falsification of official documents;

(d) retain jurisdiction of this case to monitor implementation of the injunction entered against the Defendants;

(e) award damages to compensate Rodriguez and Isidoro for their injuries;

(f) award punitive damages against Defendants, and a number of unnamed and unknown employees, agents, and John Does, to punish and deter them, and others, from conspiring in the future to force a United States citizen from the United States in violation of their fundamental Constitutional rights vis-a-vis the furtherance of the conspiracy to trump said rights by the Treaty, falsify documents, and deny the right to petition the government.

(g) award Rodriguez and Isidoro prejudgement interest;

(h) award costs and attorney’s fees; and,

(i) award Rodriguez and Isidoro any other relief deemed necessary and proper.

249. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 248 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

250. At all relevant times herein, Rodriguez had a right under the due process and equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions and the Article 2, 20, and 21, as well as Va. Code 20-146.25, to have the Fairfax Circuit Court and the Fairfax J&D Court expeditiously secure visitation rights and not to be deprived by the government of his constitutionally protected interest in access to Isidoro. U.S. Const. Amend. 1, 9, 10, and 14.

251. Rodriguez was denied his rights to petition government to redress grievances by the Hon. Judge Langhorne Keith acting outside of his judicial authority in imposing $1,000 in sanctions for the issuance of witness subpoenas for the NCMEC et al., to testify as to its ministerial duties under the Cooperative Agreement and Article 21 of the Treaty, and as to its teaching to both Federal and Virginia judges of unauthorized policies and practices in violation of Article III 2 of the Constitution, Article 2, 21, and 29 of the Treaty and UCCJEA Va. Code 20-146.1-35.

WHEREFORE, Rodriguez Plaintiff demands judgment for the unlawful denial of his rights to visitations in violation of Article III 2 of the Constitution, Article 2, 21, and 29 of the Treaty and UCCJEA Va. Code 20-146.1-35, against Judge Keith actions outside of his judicial authority for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

252. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 251 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

253. At all relevant times herein, Rodriguez had a right under the due process and equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions and Article 20 of the Treaty, not to be deprived by the government of his Article III 2 and IX Amendment constitutionally protected fundamental rights and interest in raising Isidoro in the safety of the United States and in having a meaningful relationship with him. U.S.Const. Amend. 1, 5, 9, 10, and 14; VA Const. 1, 2 & 3.

254. "The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by [the First] amendment and Amendments 5, 9, and 14." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (l965).

255. The Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis in his published opinion, and Judges Wilkins, Michael and Traxler, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Judges of Virginia Supreme Court, Court of Appeals of Virginia, the Fairfax Circuit Court, and the Fairfax J&D District Court, in their respective unpublished opinions, and the United States Supreme Court in its supervisory role have repeatedly obstructed Rodriguez’s fundamental rights as a father parent by adhering to the unauthorized policies and practices of the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, ICMEC and NCMEC et al.

WHEREFORE, Rodriguez demands judgment against all Defendants for their unlawful denial of the enforcement of his right of visitations under Article 21 of the Treaty and the shanghaiing of Isidoro to Colombia and the conspiracy to deprive Rodriguez for over nearly 1000 days of his parental rights in violations of Article 13b and 20 of the Treaty, to seek actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

256. Rodriguez repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 255 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

257. At all relevant times herein, Rodriguez had a right under the due process and equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions not to be deprived by the government of his fundamental constitutionally protected interest in his property right in his legal profession and to protect his Son before and subsequent to Isidoro’s being shanghaied from the United States on June 11, 2002, including the right to have expeditiously secured by U.S. Central Authority the right to visitations pursuant to the Agreement in accordance with U.S.C. Const. Amend. 5, Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, 18 U.S.C. 1204, and VA Code 20-146.25.

258. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all Defendants were subject to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.

259. Acting under the color of law, Defendants acting in their official capacity, but outside of the "scope of their employment" and judicial authority conspired to work a denial of Rodriguez’s rights, privileges or immunities secured by Article III 2, and Article IV 2 of the United States Constitution, Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, 18 U.S.C. 1204, and VA Code 20-146.25, and guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to wit,

260. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious conduct, Rodriguez was both deprived, without due process of law, of his right to his property, to protect Isidoro from the dangers in Colombia and raise Isidoro with the opportunities and benefits as a citizen of the United States, and to have a relationship with Isidoro as an adolescent boy, and deprived of his right to equal protection of the laws since July 13, 2001, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

261. Rodriguez was harmed and has been suffering from worry about the welfare of Isidoro since his being shanghaied to Colombia on June 11, 2002, grief from the loss of a meaningful relationship with Isidoro, stress, humiliation, anxiety, fear for Isidoro's safety and well-being, loss of trust, loss of confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

WHEREFORE, Rodriguez demands judgment for the violation of his civil rights against employees of U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, NCMEC et al., acting in their official capacity, but outside the scope of their employment, as well as the named Federal and State Judges acting outside of their judicial authority in disregarding rights under the Treaty, but based only on the above mentioned unauthorized policies and practices, jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and further demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, and the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

Rodriguez seeks equitable relief from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and District Judge Richard Roberts and Judge Thomas Mann, the Commonwealth and the U.S. Central Authority, such that they are ordered to immediate secure visitation rights pursuant to Article 2, 20, 21, and 29, of Treaty and UCCJEA Va. Code 20-146.25, and mandating that U.S. Central Authority perform its ministerial duty.

262. Plaintiffs repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 261 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

263. The employees of U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, NCMEC et al., acting outside the scope of their employment, as well as the named Federal and State Judges acting outside of their judicial authority in disregarding rights under the Treaty based on the above mentioned unauthorized policies and practices, jointly and severally, conspired to deprive Rodriguez of his fundamental rights as a father, privileges or immunities secured by Article III 2, and Article IV 2 of the United States Constitution, Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, 18 U.S.C. 1204, and VA Code 20-146.25 to have secured rights of visitations, and guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

PURPOSE AND PATTERN

264. The conspiratorial purpose was primarily political and financial in conceal U.S. Cental Authority, DOJ, and NCMEC et al., unauthorized policies and practices promulgated and taught to both the Federal and State judiciary in violation of Article III 2, and Article IV 2 of the United States Constitution, Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, 18 U.S.C. 1204, and VA Code 20-146.25, and guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

265. The Defendants here were taking advantage, respectively, of the sovereign and absolute judicial immunity when the Federal and State judges act within the scope of their authority, the latter having been upheld even when judges are known to be malicious and corrupt, but not when they act in violation of Article III 2, and Article IV 2 of the United States Constitution, Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, 18 U.S.C. 1204, and VA Code 20-146.25, and guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

PURPOSE OF THE SCHEME AND COVER-UP OF CONSPIRACY

266. Integral to the scheme was for all sitting justices to obfuscate, not address and assume away Rodriguez rights under Article III 2, and Article IV 2 of the United States Constitution, Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, 18 U.S.C. 1204, and VA Code 20-146.25, and guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the invidious discriminatory animus: the disparate impact nexus between invidious discrimination and the conspiracy to burden Rodriguez.

WHEREFORE, Rodriguez demands judgment for the violation of his civil rights against employees of U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, NCMEC et al., acting outside the scope of their employment, as well as the named Federal and State Judges acting outside of their judicial authority in disregarding rights under the Treaty based on the above mentioned unauthorized policies and practices, jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and further demands judgment against each of said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, and the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

Rodriguez seeks equitable relief from Federal and State judges, specifically U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts and Fairfax J&D Judge Thomas Mann such as (a) severe sanctions against them for their acting outside of their judicial authority, incompetence, lawlessness, and deliberate indifference to the clearly established and secured constitutional and rights under the Treaty of Rodriguez, and if within the power of this court, (b) instructions to the U.S. Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to investigate both Federal and State Judges for the implementation of the unauthorized polices and practices of the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, and NCMEC et al. In violation of the Treaty, specifically the right to have secured visitation rights pursuant to Article 2, 21, and 29 of the Treaty and UCCJEA Va. Code 20-146.25.

Rodriguez seeks equitable relief to notify or instruct all sitting justices to conform their orders to the mandatory, nondiscretionary, rights to secure visitations under Article 2, 21, 29 of the Treaty.

267. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 266 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

268. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Judges of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, the Fairfax County Court, and the Fairfax J&D Court were acting under the direction and control of Judges of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

269. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official unauthorized policy and practices taught to them by the U.S. Central Authority et al., DOJ, ICMEC, and the NCMEC et al., Judges of the Supreme Court of Virginia knowingly, with deliberate indifference or in reckless disregard or with gross negligence of rights under Article III 2 of the U.S. Constitution and Virginia Constitution Article 1, 2 and 3, repeatedly failed to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis Judges in their duties to secure Rodriguez to his rights of visitations under the Treaty and VA Code and refrain from:

(a) unlawfully and maliciously harassing a citizen who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities,

(b) conspiring to violate the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to Rodriguez by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Treaty and VA Code 20-146.25; and,

( c ) otherwise depriving Rodriguez of his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities.

270. The Judges of the Supreme Court of Virginia have intentionally or with deliberate indifference or in reckless disregard or negligently failed either to use their powers or to fulfill their duties in accordance with the Article 2, 20, 21 and 29 of the Treaty and Va. Code 20-146.1-35, based on the unauthorized teachings of the U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, ICMEC, and the NCMEC et al.:

271. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligent and intentional acts of all Judges acting outside of their judicial authority as set forth above, Rodriguez for almost 800 days has suffered mental anguish in connection with the deprivation of his fundamental parental constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by Article III 2, and the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, Article 20 and 21 of the Treaty, and protected by 18 U.S.C. 1204 and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

WHEREFORE, Rodriguez demands Judgment, including interest, against Judge of the Supreme Court of Virginia for actes of conspiracy outside of their judicial authority and for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and further demands Judgment, including interest, against Judges of the Supreme Court of Virginia for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, and the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

272. Plaintiffs repeat and realleges and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 271 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

273. Defendants’ conspiracy to intentionally and deliberately inflict emotional distress on Rodriguez for almost 800 days by violating Article III 2, and Article IV 2 of the United States Constitution, Article 2, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty, 18 U.S.C. 1204, and VA Code 20-146.25, and guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, by interfering with his civil rights, and by conspiring against him and Isidoro’s rights in their Father/Son relationship, thereby have destroyed his trust in the judicial system.

274. Defendants' conduct outside of their scope of employment and their judicial authority was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community which respects the fundamental rights of a father.

275. The actions of the Defendants were the cause of Rodriguez's distress.

276. The emotional distress sustained by Rodriguez in being unlawfully deprived of his parental rights was severe and of a nature that no reasonable man could be expected to endure.

277. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, Rodriguez has suffered and with a high degree of likelihood, will continue to suffer mental pain and anguish, embarrassment, humiliation that he was so betrayed by the judicial system, and severe emotional trauma.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment, including interest, against Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, such as severe sanctions against Judges for their lawlessness, and if within the power of this court, that relief being to request an investigation by both the Federal and Virginia Executive and Legislative Branches of the abuse of power outside of their judicial authority which has caused the depriving Rodriguez of his fundamental parental rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1204.

278. Plaintiffs repeat and realleges and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 277 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

279. Upon information and belief U.S. Central Authority, DOJ, ICMEC and NCMEC et al., by virtue of the conduct described herein, attempted to and did agree, combine, conspire and act in concert together to injure Rodriguez’s law office, profession and reputation by causing, inducing or facilitating the repeated action deprive Rodriguez in his property rights, conspiring to file a false Virginia State Bar Complaint in October 2003, in retaliation for Rodriguez exercising his First Amendment right to petition the government for its unauthorized policies and practices in violation of Article III 2 of the Constitution, 18 U.S.C. 1204, Article 2, 13b, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty and Va. Code 20 146.1-35, in bad faith conspired infliction of injury to Rodriguez professional reputation and standing, and otherwise engaging in acts designed to injure Rodriguez in his trade, law office, profession, and reputation.

WHEREFORE, by virtue of the business conspiracy herein alleged, Defendants have caused damages, including for lost profits, law office interruption etc., to Rodriguez’s trade, practice, reputation, law office and goodwill, all in an amount to be determined through discovery and at jury trial.

280. Rodriguez repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 279 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

281. All the Defendants (a) had an object to be accomplished; (b) had an agreement on the object or course of action, to wit, to deprive Rodriguez of his parental rights under Article III 2 and the V and IV Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, 13b, 20, 21, and 29 of the Treaty and VA Code 20-146.25, ( c ) performed one or more unlawful overt acts; and (d) caused Rodriguez damages that were a direct result of those acts.

282. Rodriguez has suffered harm and damages as stated above as a direct result of those acts.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands Judgment, including interest, against Judges and Courts jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

283. Plaintiffs repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 282 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

284. This Claim is brought by Plaintiffs against the United States for actions undertaken by Mary B. Marshall, Robert McCannell, Knute E. Malmborg, Ernie Allen, Nancy Hammer, Esq., and Guillermo Galarza, as well as Federal judges acting outside the scope of their authority, and as yet other unknown and unnamed John Does, all acting negligently within the scope of employment in the government or in a corporation which is primarily acting as an instrumentality or agency of the United States, in furtherance of a conspiracy to conceal the NCMEC et al., unauthorized policies and practices to obstruct Rodriguez parental rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, 241 and 1204, while at the same time making false statements to the United States Congress to seek and obtain in the Summer of 2004 of Legislation to provide immunity by complicating recovery for their illegal acts.

285. The aforementioned actions of the United States of America, through the actions of Mary B. Marshall, Robert McCannell, Knute E. Malmborg, Ernie Allen, Nancy Hammer, Esq., and Guillermo Galarza, and as yet other unknown and unnamed John Does, all acts negligently within the scope of employment in the government or in a corporation which is primarily acting as an instrumentality or agency of the United States, constitute violations of the fundamental right to the society and companionship in the father/sons’ relationship, access to the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, constitute an illegal shanghaiing of Isidoro from the United States, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of freedom to petition the government, falsification of official documents, and an invasion of privacy.

286. In compliance with the requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act, Rodriguez and Isidoro have filed an administrative claim for relief with the United States Department of State on January 7, 2002, and an amendment thereto on September 15, 2002. This claim and amendment were denied on August 1, 2002, and September 24, 2002 respectively. Accordingly, Rodriguez and Isidoro have exhausted all administrative preconditions to filing this legal claim.

WHEREFOR, Rodriguez and Isidoro request this Court to:

(a) Declare that the United States of America has violated the Federal Tort Claims Act;

(b) enter judgement in favor of Rodriguez and Isidoro and against Defendants;

( c ) award damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 to compensate Rodriguez and Isidoro for interference with the society and companionship in the father/sons’ relationship and the shanghaiing of Isidoro from the United States to Colombia, and other injuries;

(d) award costs and attorneys’ fees; and,

(e) award Rodriguez and Isidoro any other relief deemed necessary and proper.

_______________________________

Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.

Attorney Pro Per

Virginia Bar No. 21573

 

 

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury pursuant to the VII Amendment of the United States Constitution and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 38, as to all issues and counts, except for the action under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

 

I declare under a penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed: March 7, 2005

_______________________________

Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.

Attorney Pro Per

Virginia Bar No. 21573

Enter supporting content here

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: