(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, 2^nd 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 (10^th 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 litigator.

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.

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.’

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 unemployment compensation.

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,

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 prerogative.

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:

The language of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 404 (1816), is most apposite, when he stated that the courts:

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,

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 (10^th Cir. (Okla.) March 10, 2008)(No.07-6108, unpublished).

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 complained of.

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:

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.

Respectfully Submitted,