“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …”– U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982).
Directly related to the above, and the need for citizens to act to stop the misuse of office by Obama’s appointed attorneys and judges, as well as to stop the retaliatory interstate racketeering enterprise against me for being an independent federal civil litigator and advocate of the right of citizens vis-a-vis abuse of power by government employees, including judge, I have recently filed a civil law suit, See Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., E.D. of VA(Richmond Div.) No. 12-cv-663-JAG, and filed the below requests pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§§ 3332(a), and 3771, that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, E.D. of Virginia, E.D. of Pennsylvania, the S.D. of New York, and the W.D. of Washington, convey to a Special Grand Jury the evidence of the on going interstate federal crimes of misprision of the felony of treason and obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 241, 242, 1001, and 3771, as well as 26 U.S.C. §§ 7214 and 6212( c )(1), and to seek the courts’ protection as a victim from said federal crimes.2010 Presentation to NOVA members of Virginia General Assembly
Additionally, as a “person interested” I have requested the instituting of Quo Warranto proceedings pursuant to D.C. Code, Division II, Title 16, Chapter 35, §§3502 and 3522, investigate and remove Obama’s appointees Eric Holder, Douglas Shulman, Paul L. Friedman, James E. Boasberg (“JEB”), John O. Colvin, L. Paige Marvel, Richard T. Morrison, and Laurence J. Whalen, and Richard A. Schwartz (“Eric Holder et al.”), for the unlawful exercise of their respective offices in a conspiracy with other government attorneys and judges, and Washington, D.C. Beltway Lobbyists/Attorneys to violate the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine in the District of Columbia, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public corporation, but outside the scope of their employment, authority, jurisdiction, and not in the interest of the United States.
I am a “person interested” as referenced in §§3503 and 3523, based on the evidence of the ongoing unlawful conspiracy to use their respective offices in the District of Columbia in retaliation for my successfully litigating on behalf of nonresident U.S. and Colombian citizens against unlawful U.S. policies and acts:
● by depriving me of access to a jury trial to seek damages for the obstruction of my right as a father under Treaty from 2003 until 2006 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201.Government Policy of Obstruction of Rights of Fathers;
● by depriving me of my substantive statutory property rights in my choate Virginia Attorney’s Lien on the Treasure Troves sunken Galleon San Jose estimated at US $17 Billion, See Sea Search Armada v. Republic of Colombia, and Intervenor Isidoro Rodriguez v. Sea Search Armada, et al., D.C. Dist. Ct. No. 10-cv-02083 (JEB dismissed October 24, 2011);
● by depriving me of my right to due process and equal protection of the laws by giving “preclusive” legal effect to unconstitutional court rules Part Six, § IV of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the unlawfully created Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s void ab initio order disbarring me for litigating to enforce my statutory rights, to reciprocally disbar me as a federal practitioner before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Tax Court, See Irene Rodriguez and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Douglas Shulman, et al., D.C. Cir. Ct. No. 11-cv-1183(JEB dismissed on February 21, 2012);
● by depriving me of my reputation, multinational law business, profession and right to employment as a pro hoc vice federal civil litigator in violation of the limitations and prohibitions of Art. VI, § 1, 5, and 7 VA Const., by the on the Supreme Court of Virginia, See: Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, et al., E.D. of VA (Richmond Div.) No. 12-cv-663-JAG; and, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Jack Harbeston, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. WD Wash. No. 11-cv-1601 (JCC)(dismissed March 1, 2012)Contitutional Tort of Treason and Misprision of the Felony of Treason;
● by depriving me of my right to VA unemployment compensation benefits under the Social Security Act for work done in the District of Columbia, See Isidoro Rodriguez v. Virginia Employment Commission, U.S. Sup Ct. Docket No. 09-954 (Cert. Denied March 19, 2010), Supreme Court of Virginia Record No. 092494, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0291-09-4; and,
● by depriving me of the right to deduct business operation/litigation expenses for 2006 so to harass and assess taxes grater then allowed by law in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7214 and 6212, See Irene Rodriguez and Isidoro Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 10691-09 (An Order confirming unlawful act of IRS issued on October 9, 2012).
The evidence of my injuries confirms that I have met the “the burden of establishing [the] existence” of standing so that the federal courts cannot presume a lack jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 104 (1998); Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316 (1991). I have suffered “personal injury traceable to the “allegedly unlawful conduct [of misprision of the felony of treason] and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750-52 (1984). I have a “personal stake” in the on going unlawful use of office as part of a conspiracy of treason, misprision of the felony of treason, and obstruction of law to deprive me of my rights in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and “that the injury is particularized as to [me].” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819 (1997); and, I have demonstrated “standing for each claim [I] seeks to press,” Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006).
It bears stating that Obama’s appointed government attorneys and judges took oaths of office to the Constitution. Indeed: “In any event, it is clear that the idea of the sovereign, or any part of it, being above the law in this sense has not survived in American law.” Seminole Tribe v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44, f/n #2 (1996). “No 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 officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 220, 261 (1882)(Emphasis added).
Upon the foregoing, and pursuant to §3501, I request that each of you support the petition for a writ “quo warranto” in “the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against” Eric Holder et al.
Isidoro Rodriguez, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: REQUEST TO REFER TO A SPECIAL GRAND JURY THE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, TREASON AND MISPRISION OF A FELONY OF TREASON TO VIOLATE ART. VI, § 1, 5, AND 7 OF THE VIRGINIA CONST., AND TO SEEK PROTECTION AS VICTIM OF INTERSTATE FEDERAL CRIMES.
Pursuant 18 U.S.C.§§ 3332(a), and 3771, I request that each of you convey to a Special Grand Jury in your jurisdiction, the evidence of the above on going federal crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 241, 242, 1001, and 3771, as well as 26 U.S.C. §§ 7214 and 6212( c )(1), and to petition for your protection of me as a victim of misuse of office outside the scope of their employment, authority, jurisdiction, and not in the interest of the United States by government employees, including judges, in collusion with Beltway Lobbyists/Attorneys.
In enacting 18 U.S.C. 3332(a), Congress removed your discretion as a prosecutor in deciding whether to present the above information to grand jury. You do retain discretion only with respect to how you act and recommend concerning that information. This was confirmed in In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199 (USDC/SDNY 1985), wherein the judge ruled that, “[s]ince the U.S. Attorney has been requested to present certain information to the grand jury he must do so. I will not relieve him of a duty which Congress has seen fit to impose.” (Emphasis added). Furthermore, because I have no other adequate remedy available to protect myself as a victim of the above federal crimes by the systematic denial of access to an impartial court and jury trial of the evidence of government employees, including judges criminal acts, both 18 U.S.C. 3332(a), and In re Grand Jury Application, supra., stand for the proposition that if necessary I have a right to obtain a writ of mandamus to compel you to present to a special grand jury the evidence of wrongdoing.
In summary, the evidence is that since 2008 there has been retaliation against me motivated either by either conflicting financial interest with my statutory attorney’s lien, cronyism, and/or animosity to me as an independent pro hoc vice federal civil litigator for representing nonresident U.S./Colombian citizens, i.e. retaliation for my arguing/winning Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995)(right to evidentiary hearing before a jury on scope of employment certification). Thus, I have been injured in my right to statutory lien, reputation, multinational law business, profession, and right to employment as a federal litigator, by: ● A constitutional tort of treason and misprision of a felony to use unconstitutional court rules and void ab initio orders in violation of Art. VI §§ 1, 5, and 7 of the VA Const., and Art. IV § 4, the 5th & 14th Amend.; ● An interstate racketeering enterprise to systematically deny me access to an impartial trial by jury for damages and equitable relief for malfeasance, including for the past obstruction of my rights as a father under Treaty from 2003 to 2007; and, ● A business conspiracy to deprive me of my 5% choate statutory lien on Treasure Trove valued at $17 Billion USD, by violations of VA Code §18.2-499.
DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Accordingly therefore, each of you must convey the evidence of multiple felony federal offenses in you jurisdiction to a lawfully convened federal special grand jury forthwith.
DEADLINE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Your specific performance and detailed compliance must be demonstrated “forthwith,” by confirming the same in writing to me no later than January 4, 2013. Thank you for your timely and professional cooperation in this matter.
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.