Posts
The Equal Parenting Party urges the public to support legislation to enact a shared Parenting law for fit parents.
Such a law would reduce the profit motive in our Court system, advance Equal Protection and Due Process of law for litigants and bring fairness and happiness for those who need it most, our children.
We urge our State lawmakers to pass a law placing a cap on legal fee in the amount of $25,000.00 absent extraordinary circumstances. Such a cap in legal fees will, without doubt, speed up the time cases take to finish by taking away the greed motivating the Court system.
Another necessary change in our law will bring accountability to and respect to our good Judges and have such care and respect given by our Judges to our citizens. Thus, the Equal Parenting Party urges the legislature to remove all legal immunity from Judges and allow them to be accountable for instances of intentional wrongdoing and gross negligence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
August 28, 2009
Via U.S. first Class Mail, E-letter by Cong.Org.,
and Telefax: (202) 456-2461(without attachments)
President Barack Obama
The White House,
District of Columbia 20500
Attn F. Michael Kelleher
Re: In re: Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Docket No. 09-237.
Greetings:
In response to your staff’s letter of July 2, 2009, I write that my actions to defend my rights as a U.S. citizen, father, and attorney are not taken lightly. They are based on my oath taken 45 years as a Nam Vet and later as a Carter/Reagan White House appointee-to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies “foreign and domestic.” Thus, I assert that they are incorrect in writing that “due to separation of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters.”
Also, they are in error because knowledge of the interstate criminal conspiracy to punish me as an independent federal civil litigator in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 201, 241, 242, 1341, 1343, 1513, 1951, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) – 18 U.S.C. §1962( c ) and (d), as well as Va. Code § 18.2-481(5), 2-482, and, 499, places upon them a legal obligation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4 (see, Federal criminal complaints filed on August 7, 2009, with the FBI and the AUSA in VA, D.C., CO, NY, and PA, http://home.earthlink.net/~malfeasance).
In summary, in retaliation for my petitioning Congress, the General Assembly of Virginia and law enforcement in 2005 for the investigation of the obstruction my rights as a father under Treaty and Va UCCJEA-in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204 (see, http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror, and http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml), I have been the target of an interstate business conspiracy.Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714 (1877) Thus, I have been deprived of my business, profession, and right to employment as an independent federal civil litigator, as well as denied my right to federal unemployment compensation, and subjected to unjustified Internal Revenue Service review of my 2006 litigation expenses and child tax credit.
Query, if I with more than three decades of federal trail/appellate civil litigation experience can be targeted and deprived of the right to access to an impartial civil jury trial and court to litigate against malfeasance--what is either an inexperience attorney or a layman father to do to secure statutory rights and accountability for malfeasance?
Based on the above, consistent with your Administration’s slogan “Change You Can Believe In,” the Solicitor General must file by September 25, 2009, a response in support of the consideration of the above referenced petition for certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
Attachment
cc: Members of Senate and House of Representatives to Congress
1.The linchpin of this interstate criminal business conspiracy was: (1) the filing of two fraudulent bar complaints by then Beltway Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder and my former client with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”); (2) the VSBDB issuing a void order revoking my in license for litigating to enforce my federal and Virginia statutory rights as a father and attorney (See, http://home.earthlink.net/~treason/); and, (3) Federal judges in VA, DC, CO, NY, and PA conspired to refuse to protect me as a victim of a conspiracy pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and to deny me access to impartial judicial review of VSBDB void order by refusing to comply with Void Order Doctrine, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), and Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714 (1877), the standard of Selling v. Redford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917), Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278 (1957), and Rules Enabling Act.
Post a Comment