I, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. ("Rodriguez"), the undersigned complainant write
the following in support of immediate action on the criminal complaint based on the evidence that Federal and Virginia judges
in collusion with government attorneys and Beltway Lobbyist/Attorneys in Fairfax County, Virginia, and elsewhere in Virginia,
in the Eastern District of Virginia, Washington, D.C., Colorado, New York, and, Pennsylvania, for private gain and outside
of their authority did unlawfully and knowingly use interstate mails and interstate wire communications to conspire with each
other and with others to directly or indirectly have systematically participated in an interstate criminal conspiracy from
by the unlawful use of mail and wire communications to injure, punish, stigmatize, and deprive Rodriguez of his right to employment
as an independent pro hoc vice federal civil litigator and federal unemployment compensation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
4, 201, 241, 242, 1341, 1343, 1513, 1951, and 1962, as well as Va. Code §§ 18.2-481(5), 2-482, and, 499, by:
(I) the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board ("VSBDB") issuing a void order in violation of the Va. Constitution
and Va. Code, to revoke his license based on the use of interstate mail and wire communication from the District of Columbia
and the State of Washington into the Commonwealth of Virginia (http://www.vsb.org/profguides/actions_jul06-dec06.html), to file fraudulent bar complaints by Beltway Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder and undersign counsel’s
former client-both in retaliation for undersign counsel litigating respectively to enforce his federal and Virginia statutory
rights as a father; and litigating to protect his property rights in his perfected statutory Virginia Attorneys’s Lien
based on 12 years of contract litigation under a contingency fee for clients 50% share of approximately $3 Billion USD of
sunken treasure trove off the coast of the Republic of Colombia;
(II) the D. C. Court of Appeals Committee on Admission use of interstate mail and wire communication to conspire
shelve undersign counsel’s 2005 waiver application and to then disregard his right and demand for a public hearing on
his right pursuant to the Void Order Doctrine to practice law in D.C.;
(III) the judges of a Special Designated Panel form the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
to use interstate mail and wire communication in a conspiracy with Forth/D.C. Circuit Justice and U.S. Supreme Court Chief
Justice John G . Roberts, to: first, violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 3771, by refusing to protect undersign counsel as a victim
of the on going interstate criminal conspiracy; and, second, for them to conspire to deny undersign counsel impartial judicial
review in violation of the Void Order Doctrine mandated by Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US
714 (1877), Selling v. Redford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917), and, Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278 (1957)- - so to surreally declare
both government officials and judges absolutely immune from suit under civil RICO, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, for conspiring to issue and enforce the VSBDB void order issued outside of their authority and jurisdiction, as valid
one issued by a "court" created in compliance with Va. Constitution and Va. Code; and,
(IV) by participating in a conspiracy by Jane and John Doe judges of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second, Third, Fourth, and District of Columbia Circuits to aid and abet the violation of Congress’ delegated to
the U.S. Supreme Court of "discretionary appellate jurisdiction" under the Judiciary Act of 1925 (43 Stat. 936), by covering-up
the obstruction of Rodriguez’ rights under the Treaty and Va UCCJEA, and by aiding and abetting by denying access to
an impartial court to asst in the punishing of Rodriguez for litigating to enforce his fundamental statutory rights as a father
and independent federal litigator, thereby inviting the on going criminal violations of Rodriguez’ statutory and Constitutional
rights by enforcing the VSBDB void order. See In re Isidoro Rodriguez, 2nd Cir. No. 08-90089, Grievance Panel’s
order issued July 31, 2009; Petition for Rehearing En Banc, filed on or about August 10, 2009. See also, Motion for Injunction
to Third Circuit denied U.S. Sup. Ct. Docket No. 08A858 (May 4, 2009), and Petition for Certiorari to Third Circuit, denied
Docket No. 08-1121(May 18, 2009), and Docket Nos. 03-971,05-545, 05-1059, 05-5130, 05-5202, 07A142, 07A370, 07-419, 07A601,
08-339, 08A399, 08-411, 08-574, 08A838, 08-942.
In violation of their oaths of office defendant government attorneys and judges have fraudulently denied
access to an impartial jury trial and court with the effect of permitting the malfeasance and criminal act of enforcing the
VSBDB void order to continue unabated.
Article III judges enjoy a freehold in their offices limited by "good behavior" tenure, U.S. Const. art.
III, § 1. Pursuant to common-law concept well-known to the Framers, this phrase was borrowed from England, where the standard
for forfeiture of judicial office was: abuse of office, nonuse of office, and refusal to exercise an office. Henry v. Barkley,
79 Eng. Rep. 1223, 1224 (K.B. 1596).
Blackstone added that "the oppression and tyrannical partiality of judges, justices, and other magistrates,
in the administration and under the colour of their office [could be prosecuted] either by impeachment in parliament, or by
information in the court of king's bench." 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 140-41.
Accordingly, a judge can be removed from office for even a single decision on the bench, provided
it is sufficiently egregious in character. Today, cognizable misconduct is conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the business of the courts." 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). Misconduct includes using the judges office to obtain special
treatment for friends."1 Thus, a complaint alleging that a decision is the result of an improper motive can constitute
misconduct. In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct No. 2006-10-372-40 (10th Cir. Judicial Council 2007) at 2.
Bottom line, in the instant action judges have committed a felony by obstructing Rodriguez’ rights
as a father and by issuing and enforcing the VSBDB void order to deprive him of his right to employment as an independent
federal litigator-- and their colleagues looked the other way.2
While no judge should ever be subjected to professional discipline for an honest mistake, the evidence presented
cannot possibly be so characterized. The Criminal Complaint filed with both Federal and Virginia law enforcement set forth
violations of federal criminal law, statutory and constitutional rights of Rodriguez as a father and independent federal civil
In defiance of Rodriguez’ right to access to an impartial jury trial and court to consider the allegations
of malfeasance the Federal and Virginia court repeatedly issued summary dismissal orders based on the holding that the Executive
and Judicial Branch are absolutely immune from suit for both tortious and criminal acts.
There are only a few explanations for this incident, and all of them are bad. Either the Federal and Virginia Judicial
Branch are profoundly incompetent and/or senile, they have refused to do their office (delegating the judge-level task of
deciding appeals to incompetent fresh-faced kids right out of law school who received their positions on account of patronage),
or they have as alleged in the Complaint knowingly committed a number of federal crimes by seeking to enforce the VSBDB void
order.I. Violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 241, 242, 1513.
It is essential to emphasize at this point that, that the acts of issuing and enforcing the VSBDB void order
chronicled in Rodriguez’ Virginia and Federal criminal complaints and Affidavit fall under:
First, Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241,3 which stature makes it unlawful the Federal
and Virginia government attorneys and judges to conspire with Beltway lobbyists/ attorneys to agree together to injure Rodriguez
in the Commonwealth of Virginia in retaliation for the free exercise or enjoyment, or having exercised his right or privilege
as a father and independent federal civil litigator secured to him by the Constitution, Treaty and Federal statutes. Although
Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime-here
the overt act has been the obstruction of Rodriguez rights as a father and the issuance of the VSBDB void order.
Second, 18 U.S.C. § 242, makes it a crime for the Federal and Virginia government attorneys and judges, and Beltway
lobbyists/attorneys (i.e. Virginia Bar Associations), acting under color of any law to willfully deprive Rodriguez of his
rights as a father and attorney or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States-based on giving effect
to the VSBDB void order.4
The record confirms that explaining conspiracy law to a federal judge or government attorney is as pointless
as explaining violation of a trust to Bernard Madoff. Thus, it should be sufficient to write that an act plus agreement equals
a conspiracy, and that a conspiracy can be inferred from the act itself. Accordingly, this situation further implicates 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.
As judges act under color of law, and the rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law and to
meaningful access to the courts are clearly protected by the Constitution and our laws, the only question in the situation
presented here where the VSBDB has issued a void order to deprive a Rodriguez of his federal protected statutory rights as
a father and independent federal civil litigator is whether a judge intended to deprive him of his rights.
As the Sixth Circuit later explains, the decision in United States v. Screws established "that once a due
process right has been defined and made specific by court decisions, the right is encompassed by § 242." United States v.
Lanier, 33 F.3d 639, 1994 C06 40712, ¶ 69 (6th Cir. 1994) (Versuslaw). The Lanier court made it clear that the judge didn’t
have to be thinking in constitutional terms; thus, if a judge signed an order depriving a litigant of his rights with knowledge
of its effects, he has earned a vacation in ‘Club Fed.’
Third, 18 U.S.C. § 1513, makes it a crime for Federal and Virginia government attorneys and judges, as well
as Beltway Lobbyists/Attorneys to conspire to retaliate and interference with the Rodriguez right to lawful employment as
an independent federal civil litigator for providing to a law enforcement officer information relating to the commission of
the Federal offense See Exhibit 1, and http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml.
Fourth, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4,5 knowledge of the criminal conspiracy and the jurisdiction to pursue those
responsible, imposes upon all government official the legal obligation to investigate, arrest, indict, and prosecute the named
defendant co-conspirators. II. Violation of Right to Jury Trial under Both the Virginia Tort Claim Act and Business Conspiracy
Acts to Litigate Malfeasance.
In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Thomas Paine: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor
ever yet imagined by men, by which the government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Jefferson saw trial by jury as the greatest power that the people have, and the only way the people had to
personally and directly prevent government employees from flagrantly ignoring constitutional restraints and oppressing the
people with excessive and often ridiculous laws and regulations i.e. like the Supreme Court of Virginia usurping the authority
and mandate of the General Assembly by creating through its Rules an illegal attorney disciplinary system.
It is for this reason that both the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and Virginia Constitution
in Article I, § 11 guarantees the right to a trial by jury. Furthermore, both the Virginia Tort Claim Act and the Virginia
Business Conspiracy Act mandate trial by jury for malfeasance by all government official-including judges acting outside of
their judicial authority and jurisdiction.6 See 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 140-41.
However, to date both the Federal and Virginia judges have unilaterally declared themselves and government
attorneys absolute immune form suit for the criminal conspiracy that has deprived Rodriguez of his right due process and equal
protection of the laws, rights as a father, right to employment as an independent federal civil litigator, and right to federal
A. There Is No Immunity from Suit for a Criminal Conspiracy to Issue and Enforce the VSBDB Void Orders.
In The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), Sir Edward Coke found that Article 39 of the
Magna Carta restricted the power of judges to act outside of their jurisdiction such proceedings would be void, and actionable,
[W]hen a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso ordine or erroneously, there the party
who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court who executes the precept or process of the Court, no action lies against
them. But (b) when the Court has not jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a person who is not
a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process . . . Id. 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038-41.
Thus, historically there is no absolute judicial and ministerial immunity for acts outside of jurisdiction,
and an action will lie for the conspiracy to issue and enforce the VSBDB void order as part of an illegal enterprise.
In England and the colonies, it was in ordinary courts-before a jury trial-which determined whether government
officers, including judges, with good behavior tenure were to be held accountable in either civil or criminal trials for misbehavior.
Prakash and Smith, How to Remove a Federal Judge, 116 Yale L. J. 72 at 74 (2006).
Blackstone discussed various English statutes that provided for the making accountable and removal of judges
for misbehavior in proceeding. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries 140 at 141. These were not statutory exception to grants
of good-behavior tenure, but consistent with the concept that a judge could be tried in court. See, e.g. R. V. Gaskin, (1799)
1001 Eng. Rep. 1349 (K.B.) (reinstating a parish-clerk upon his demand that his employer show cause for firing him); James
Bagg’s Case (1616) 77 Eng. Rep. 1271, 1278-81 (K.B.)(reinstating a burgess for lack of cause to remove him).
Virginia enacted the English rule in Va. Code §8.01-195.3(3), to hold that a judge or government attorney
had no immunity from suit for acts outside of his judicial capacity or jurisdiction. See Robert Craig Waters,"Liability of
Judicial Officers under Section 1983" 79 Yale L. J.(December 1969), pp. 326-27 and nn. 29-30). In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349 at 360 (1978), the Supreme Court confirmed that a State judge would be immune from suit only if he did not act outside
of his judicial capacity and/or was not performing any act expressly prohibited by statute. See Block, Stump v Sparkman and
the History of Judicial Immunity, 4980 Duke L.J. 879 (l980).
B. Violation of Oath of Office is Treason.
History reports that Napoleon at his coronation took the imperial crown out of the hands of the Pope and
crowned himself King. However, Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the or government attorneys do not have that
This is because before a Virginia attorney’s name is entered upon the roll he/she must take an oath
to "support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of _________, and that I will faithfully
discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability."
Also all judges must take a second oath of office before entering upon the duties of their office to "solemnly
swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the
State of ______, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability."
Further, if the judge or attorney had enlisted in the U.S. military, as then he/she has subscribed to a lifetime
oath, under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502, to in pertinent part, as follows:
"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...".
The language of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 404 (1816), is most apposite,
when he stated that the courts:
. . . have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which
is not given. The one or the other would
be treason to the Constitution.7 (Emphasis added)
Thus, based on taking at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, any
judge or attorney who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against it and engages an
act or acts of treason,Here the evidence of treason is more evident by the issuing and enforcing of the VSBDB void order to
punish Rodriguez for acting pursuant to his federal rights under Treaty and Va. UCCJEA.See Exhibit 1 and 2 with Affidavit.
When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid Constitutional provisions
or valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction or judicial capacity, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard
633 F.2d 844 (1980), Den Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020 (1981). Whenever a judge acts where he does not have jurisdiction
to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392,
406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821). This includes if a judge does not fully comply
with the Constitution and statute, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction,
and he has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
The benchmark for accountability of employees of the government-as well as judges- is United States v. Lee,
106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882), wherein the U.S. Supreme Court stated that,
[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance
with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound
to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in
its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes
upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. (Emphasis added).8
In total disregard of this holding, Federal and Virginia judges have unilaterally declared themselves and
government attorneys absolutely immune from civil suit for tortious and criminal acts, including for treason. See Rodriguez
v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, et al., Va Sup Ct. No. 081146, Fairfax Cir Ct. No. CL-2007-15396, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
v. Ed.-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Ct. Of App. No. 07-5234 (Feldman, J.), and, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. and Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun
v. NCMEC, et al., D.C. No. 03-0120 (Roberts, J.).
However, above case law and statues makes it is clear that neither Judges nor government attorneys have any
judicial/ministerial immunity for treason, criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal
act, or for violating their administrative/ministerial authority and oath of office to serve the people.
C. No Immunity For A Criminal Enterprise
In the instant action the evidence confirms a criminal conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 201, 241,
242, 1341, 1343, 1513, 1951, and 1962, as well as Va. Code §§ 18.2-481(5), 2-482, and, 499, by the issuance and enforcement
of VSBDB void orders to injure, punish and stigmatize Rodriguez and to obstruct justice.
Thus, both absolute and qualified immunity are lost with the evidence of criminal violations. Turner v. Houseman,
2008 WL 647526, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5127, slip op. At 3 (10th Cir. (Okla.) March 10, 2008)(No.07-6108, unpublished).
Crime is contagious. If Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man
to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
Here there has been clear and indisputable violation of statutes to obstruct the rights of Rodriguez as a
father and to deprive Rodriguez of his right to employment as an attorney by issuing and enforcing the VSBDB void order in
retaliation for litigating. On the face of it, these are serious crimes.
The record provides evidence of a pattern and practice by Federal and Virginia judges, in collusion with
government attorneys and Beltway Lobbyists/Attorneys to refuse to comply with their oaths as attorney and office.9
Rodriguez alleges that judges have been systematically extinguished his meritorious complaints under RICO
for obstruction of his rights as a father and issuance of the VSBDB void order. Thus, Federal and Virginia judges have been
abusing and refusing to exercise their offices on a routine basis, resulting in the wholesale destruction of Rodriguez federal
statutory rights, as well as rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Amendments to the Bill of Rights. The evidence
of the on going criminal acts and malfeasance lies in the court decisions themselves-which have enforce the VSBDB void order
as a valid one, thereby constitute indelible evidence of the pattern and practice of a criminal conspiracy and discrimination
While every breach of the public trust is a matter for concern, few can be more grievous than those committed
by our judiciary. As famed 19th-century orator Daniel Webster rightly noted:
There can be no office in which the sense of responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge; especially
of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty, and property of every man. The judiciary power, on the
other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of
the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no
remedy on this side the bar of Heaven.10
We can not long survive the unbridled tyranny of a judiciary in collusion with government attorneys that
is above and beyond the law.
A judge and government attorney are bound by honor and oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. However,
the record confirms that something has gone wrong in the management of both Federal and Virginia government offices by the
"[resisting] the execution of [Art. VI, § 1, § 5, and § 7 of the Virginia Constitution and Va. Code § 54.1-3935] under color
of [their] authority."
The basic tenet that government is not to be used for personal enrichment and the extending of benefits to
the corrupt. Government and the Judicial Branch are to work to ensure that public officials are using their office to further
the public interest and not to enrich themselves or others.
As the United States Supreme Court has observed: "[A] democracy is effective only if the people have faith
in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities
which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption." United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 562 (1961).
The Court is a public institution in this republic, and it has a duty to promote respect for the law and
to impose a sentence that is serious enough to do so." If the vaunted rule of law can no longer protect us from the tyranny
of irritated ministers,"by declaring both government attorney and judges absolutely immune from suit for malfeasance,11
it might as well not even exist at all.
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.