To Investigate Obstruction of Rights of Fathers and Rights of Attorneys

  • Author:
    n/a
  • Send To:
    General Assembly of Virginia
  • Sponsored By:
    members of Justice for All
  • More Info at:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

PETITION BY ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ, ESQ., FOR IMPEACHMENT FOR MALFEASANCE

Pursuant to Article IV 17 of the Constitution of Virginia, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. (Member of the Virginia State Bar in good standing since 1982, Bar No. 21573)(Undersign Counsel), in has capacity as a father and a Virginia attorney, does petition the House and Senate of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (General Assembly), to investigate the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar, and the Office of the Attorney General, and to impeach each official guilty of for malfeasance in office for violation of the laws of Virginia.

At the outset, the laws are clear. Article VI 1 of the Constitution of Virginia gives only to the General Assembly the authority to establish in Virginia courts. Furthermore, Article VI 5 of the Constitution of Virginia prohibits the Supreme Court of Virginia from promulgating rules trumping the statutory rights granted to both fathers and Virginia attorneys pursuant to Virginias Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Va. Code 20-146.25 and 35 (UCCJEA), and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980 (Treaty), see Canter v. Cohen, 442 F.3d 196 (March 21, 2006); see also Congressional Joint Concurrent Resolution 293 of May 23, 2000. Finally, 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242, make it a crime to conspire to injure, punish and stigmatize a citizen in retaliation for exercising his federal rights under the Treaty and statute. See also Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution.

However, in total disregard of the above restrictions the Supreme Court of Virginia promulgated rules to establish an unauthorized attorney court disciplinary system within the Virginia State Bar, have intentionally participated in a cover-up of their disregarding the restrictions on their authority, have intentionally stonewalled all efforts for their voluntary correction of their rules, and have criminally conspired against Undersign Counsel for his litigating to enforce his rights as a father, including permitting perjury and fraud upon the court:

in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, 371, 1001, and 1204, from January 2003 to March 2007, the above cited judges and officials did conspire to obstruct the securing of international Undersign Counsels parental rights under Treaty and UCCJEA (see http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror;

in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242, beginning in October 2003 the above cited judges and officials did conspire to injure, punish and stigmatize Undersign Counsel for taking action as an attorney to enforce his rights as a father under Treaty and UCCJEA.

The record shows that in violation of Va. Code 54-1-3915, the Virginia State Bar did for three years illegally investigate Undersign Counsel for his litigating to enforce his rights as a father pursuant to Treaty and UCCJEA, and for his litigating to enforce his perfected statutory property rights in his Virginia Attorneys Lien, Va. Code 54-1- 3932, and protect his property from a Business Conspiracy VA Code 18.2-499 and 500.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Virginia, and its agent, the Virginia State Bar compounded their unlawful actions by using the kangaroo court Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board in violation of Va. Code 54-1-3915 and 54-1-3935, as well as 18 U.S.C. 242, to conduct illegal proceedings and to issue a void orders revoking Undersign Counsels license to practice law in Virginia for litigating to enforce his statutory rights as a father and attorney.

The evidence confirms that Undersign Counsel has been punished for exercising his 1st Amendment right to petition the legislature for an investigation, and, for filing a Virginia Tort Claim against the judges for acting outside of their judicial capacity and jurisdiction in violation of Treaty and Va. Code. Thus the record supports the assertions that in the enforcement of the laws of Virginia are too important to leave to officials guilty of intentional acts outside of their official duty in violation of Article VI 1 and 5 Constitution of Virginia, Va. Code 54-1-3910, 3915, 3935.

The benchmark of the General Assemblys inquiry 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."