I. INTRODUCTION
1. I am a Citizen of the United States, a resident of Virginia and
Fairfax County.
2. This affidavit contains information necessary to support probable
cause for a Criminal Complaint for Treason and Misprision of a Felony. It is not intended to include every fact or matter
observed or known to the government or me. The information provided is based on my personal knowledge and observations, information
conveyed to me by others, and my review of records, documents, and other physical evidence.
3. This affidavit is submitted in support of an application for
a criminal complaint and corresponding arrest warrants charging Mr. Bob McDonnell, Esq., Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr.,
Hon. Barbara Milano Keenan, Hon. Lawrence L. Koontz, Jr., Hon. Cynthia D. Kinser, Hon. Donald W. Lemons, Hon. G. Steven Agee,
Hon. Barbara Milano Keenan, Hon. DT Still, Hon. Leslie Alden , Ms. Karen Ann Gould, Esq., Mr. Seth Guggenheim, Esq., Ms. Noel
D. Sengel, Esq., Mr. James Leroy Banks, Jr., Esq., Mr. William Carlyle Boyce Jr., Esq., Mr. William Ethan Glover, Esq., Mr.
Glenn M. Hodge, Esq., Mr. Stephen A. Wannall, Mr. Davis J. Gogal, Esq., Mr. Daniel M. Rathbun, Esq., Mr. Edward V. O’Connor,
Jr, Esq., Mr. John W, di Zerega, The Hon. William E. Thro, Catherine Crooks Hill, Esq., Ms. Elizabeth
B. Peay, Esq., Ms. K, Kupke, Mr. J. T. Ezell, Mr. Coleman Walsh, Jr. and Jane Does and John Does 1-20 ("Bob
McDonnell, et al."), with on going acts of treason, misprision of the felony of treason, obstructing justice and business
conspiracy in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-481(5),1 2-482,2 and, 499,3 by conspiring to "[resist]
the execution of the laws under color of [their] authority:"
3. Bob McDonnell, et al., have concealed the felony of treason
to usurp the power granted only to the General Assembly to establish inferior "courts" under Art. VI, § 1, § 5, and § 7 of
the Virginia Constitution, and to unlawful delegate judicial authority to the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board ("VSBDB"),
to establish it as a "kangaroo court" to control the independence of Virginia attorneys.
4. Bob McDonnell, et al., obstructed justice by misprision
of felony treason by denying me rights of the to access to an impartial jury trial and court under Art. 1 § 11 of the Virginia
Constitution and Virginia Tort Claims Act. to cover-up the malfeasance of the VSBDB and the courts violating Va. Code §§ 54.1-3910,
3915, and 3935, by issuing and enforcing a void order (http://www.vsb.org/profguides/actions_jul06-dec06.html), disbarring me as a Virginia attorney in good standing since 1982, based on two
fraudulent bar complaints filed in retaliation for petitioning the General Assembly for an investigation (see, 2009
presentation to Northern VA Delegates, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ); and, litigating to stop the criminal obstruction of my statutory rights as a father
under Va. UCCJEA and Treaty and damage to business, profession, perfected property rights in my statutory Virginia Attorney’s
Lien, and right to employment as an attorney, 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.); see also, http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror, and http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml).
5. As officials of the Commonwealth of Virginia Bob McDonnell, et
al., each owe a duty of honest services to Commonwealth and the people of the Virginia in the performance of their public
duties.
6. Because this affidavit is submitted for the limited purpose of
securing a criminal complaint and corresponding arrest warrants, I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning
this investigation.
II. FACTS ESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE: Subjects and Chronology
of Events:
7. Subjects Last Know Address:
The Honorable Bob McDonnell, Esq. et al..
A chronology of events:
8. In violation of Va. Code § 18.2-481(5), 2-482, and 18 U.S.C.
§ 1204, Bob McDonnell, et al., did obstruct from January 2003 until March 2007, undersign counsel’s parental
statutory rights to compel the government’s securing of international visitations with his Son as mandated by Article
21 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980 ("Treaty"), and, the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA") VA Code § 20-146.01 et seq.
9. In violation Va. Code § 18.2-481(5), 2-482, VA Code § 18.2-499
and 500, from January 2003 to the present Bob McDonnell, et al. conspired to damage undersign counsel’s reputation,
business, profession, and right to employment as an attorney for his: (1) petitioning the General Assembly of Virginia for
an investigation of the violation of the Treaty and Va. UCCJEA; (2) filing a RICO criminal and civil complaint for violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1204;4 (3) filing both Federal Tort Claim and Virginia Tort Claim Notices based on the evidence
of the negligent administration of ministerial and judicial duties under the Treaty and VA UCCJEA; and, (4) for opposing the
confirmation of John G. Roberts as Chief Justice for making false statement to Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001
and 1204 as to the duty of DOJ et al. under the Treaty.
I. UNLAWFUL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE VSBDB
10. In furtherance of the criminal enterprise Beltway attorneys/lobbyists
Mr. Eric Holder, Ms. D. Jean Veta, and Covington & Burling LLP, as well as Ms. Susan Brinkerhoff, and Proskauer Rose LLP
("Holder et al."), filed in October 2003 a fraudulent bar complaint from the District of Columbia with the VSBDB alleging
that undersign counsel violated ethical standards by his litigating to enforce rights under the Treaty and Va. UCCJEA.
11. Also, the Holder et al. conspired with Rodriguez’s
former client to file a fraudulent bar complaint for undersign counsel’s litigating to enforce his property right in
his perfected Virginia Attorneys Lien under Va. Code § 54.1-3932, on approx. $10 Billion treasure troves sunk off the
coast of Colombia.
12. Based on these two fraudulent bar complaints the VSBDB issued
a void order on October 27, 2006, revoking undersign counsel’s license to practice law in Virginia for his litigating
to enforce his rights under the Treaty and Va. UCCJEA, and for litigating to enforce his perfected property rights in his
Virginia Attorney’s Lien (http://www.vsb.org/profguides/actions_jul06-dec06.html).
13. The VSBDB void order was affirmed by the S. Ct. Va. on
June 28, 2007. The Court denied a petition for certiorari, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al.,
(S. Ct. No. 07-419, November 2, 2007).
14. The VSBDB posted on the Internet their void order so
to damage undersign counsel’s business, profession, and right to employment in retaliation for undersign counsel seeking
to enforce his statutory rights.
15. On March 31, 2007, undersign counsel was terminated from employment
as a Project Contract Attorney Team Leader in the District of Columbia based on the VSBDB void order.
ii. UNAUTHORIZED WITHHOLDING OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
16. The primary purpose of the Virginia Unemployment Compensation
Act, as mandated by Federal law, is to provide temporary financial assistance to persons who become unemployed through no
fault of their own. Va. Code § 60.2-100 et seq, 1950 as amended. The Act is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed
to effect its beneficent aims to unemployed individuals. Ford Motor Company v. Unemployment Comp. Comm'n, 191 Va. 812,
63 S.E.2d 28 (1951); 81 C.J.S., Social Security, § 147.
17. Under section 60.2-618(2), the Virginia Employment Commission
("Commission") is authorized to determine that an individual is disqualified from unemployment benefits only if he or she
has been discharged for "misconduct connected with his work."
18. An employee is guilty of misconduct when he or she, "deliberately
violates a company rule reasonably designed to protect the legitimate business interests of his employer, . . . ." Branch
v Virginia Employment Comm’n , 219 Va. 609, 611, 612, 249 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1978)(Emphasis added.
19. In determining "misconduct,"although the factual findings of
the Commission are conclusive when seeking impartial judicial review on appeal, they are so only if the Commission’s
determination is supported by evidence and is issued in absence of fraud. Va. Code § 60.2-525(A), 1950 as amended; Virginia
Employment Commission v. Gantt, 7 Va. App. 631, 376 S.E.2d 808 (1989).
20. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is to conduct impartial
judicial review to assure that there is evidence to support the findings of the Commission and that there has been no fraud,
and then confine itself to questions of law. Va. Code § 60.2-625(A).
21. In providing impartial judicial review the Courts have adopted
as a rule of law the Commission interpretation that section 60.2-618(2) means that the employer bears the burden of proving
that the claimant was discharged for misconduct, Jones v. Willard, 224 Va. 602, 299 S.E.2d 504 (1983); 1A Michie's
Jurisprudence, Administrative Law, § 8. Thus, it is the employer ("De Novo") who bears the burden of proving that Rodriguez
was discharged for reasons which constitute misconduct under section 60.2-618(2).
A. The evidence of compliance with company rule does not
support a finding of misconduct.
22. After registering for federal unemployment compensation benefits
the Commission issued a Claimant Notice of Telephone fact-finding Interview concerning undersign counsel’s eligibility
for unemployment compensation based on the VSBDB void order raising the issue of "whether or not [he was] discharged
or suspended for misconduct."
23. On December 5, 2007, at the telephone fact-finding interview
Deputy K. Kupke , in furtherance of the above business conspiracy did violate 26 U.S.C. § 1194(2), Va. Code § 60.2-618(2),
the Virginia Administrative Procedures Act, Va. Code § 2.2-4019, acted outside of her judicial capacity and jurisdiction to
hold that undersign counsel was guilty of "misconduct" based on the VSBDB void order, which was the cause of his discharge
from employment in the District of Columbia.
24. The record confirms that De Novo never
presented any evidence under oath at either before Deputy K. Kupke, that undersign
counsel undersign counsel violated said company rules.
25. In furtherance of the above alleged business conspiracy, Deputy
K. Kupke, acted outside of her judicial capacity and jurisdiction to disregard that at the time of being hired De Novo’s
company rule only required undersign counsel to have a pending his application to waive into the bar of the District of Columbia.
26. In furtherance of the above alleged business conspiracy, Deputy
K. Kupke, fraudulently acted outside of her judicial capacity and jurisdiction to deny unemployment compensation by disregarding
that the VSBDB issued a void orders in violation of Article VI § 1, § 5, and §7 of the Constitution and Va. Code §
54.1.3935.
27. On appeal
Mr.
J. T. Ezell, and Mr. Coleman Walsh, Jr., disregarded the unopposed sworn testimony of Mr. Joe Kanka
(the former Office Manger of De Novo), confirming that De Novo company rule for employment in the District of Columbia for
either recent unlicensed law graduates or experienced attorneys licensed in admitted to a State Bar outside of DC-was to have
an application pending before the D.C. Committee on Admission. that Rodriguez had at all times been in compliance with De
Novo’s company rule,5 and that Rodriguez could not have ""deliberately
violates [De nono’s]a company rule"–because it had been suddenly changed as to Rodriguez only by De Novo’s
client in late March 2007.
28. The record confirms that at each stage of the administrative
process it has been the Commission who has been carrying the burden of fraudulently alleging that Rodriguez was ineligible
for unemployment benefits on the grounds of misconduct for violating a De Novo’s company rule, based on it conspiring
to give effect to the VSBDB void order.
B. Acts of Treason by both the Commission and the Fairfax County
Circuit Court by not complying with the Void Order Doctrine.
29. The United States Supreme Court has held that an invalid
and void order can be attacked in any proceeding where they come into issue. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714 (1877).
30. The Supreme Court of Virginia has stated that "[a] void
judgment is one that has been . . . entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. . .
. " Rook v. Rook, 233 V. 92, 353 S.E2d 756, 758 (1987)(Emphasis added).
31. The evidence confirms that the VSBDB does not have either the
jurisdiction nor judicial power to act as a "court" and "judges."
32. Article VI § 1, 5, and § 7 of the Constitution of Virginia gives
solely the General Assembly the power to establish "courts of records" in Virginia and appoint judges.6
33. The General Assembly specifically enacted Va. Code § 54.1-3935,
to establish the exclusive procedure under which a "court" could lawfully revoke a Virginia attorney’s license.
34. In furtherance of misprision of a felony both the Commission
and Hon. Leslie Alden, have acted outside of their judicial capacity in violation of the void order doctrine to deny
undersign counsel of this federal right to unemployment compensation.
36. To date an appeal is still pending for the unlawful denial of
federal unemployment compensation benefits owed for the period from November 2007, based on the VSBDB void order Isidoro
Rodriguez v. Virginia Employment Commission, Record No. 0291-09-4.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the facts set forth in this affidavit, I believe that
there is probable cause to believe that Bob McDonnell, et al., have "[resisted] the execution of the laws under color
of [their] authority," to violate the Constitution of Virginia, Va. Code, and Rule of Law under the controlling stare decisis
of the Void Order Doctrine.7
Thus, there is probable cause of treason and obstruction of justice
by misprision of felony, so that each of you must exercise your jurisdiction under Va. Code § 18.2-482, to investigate, arrest,
indict, and prosecute.
Dated: July 4, 2009
Signature: _________________________
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
