Greetings:

I follow on my earlier correspondence opposing the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Attorney General Eric Holder, to petition the Senate for an investigation of the usurpation of its legislative power by the Judicial Branch in collusion with attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The evidence in court records confirms a conspiracy to deny the right to access to a civil jury trial and an impartial court to challenge malfeasance.  This is a “legal” issue which Congress must investigate and review the malfeasance of the Judicial and Executive Branch by abuse of delegated authority of Congress under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b); the Judicial Conference of the United States Act, 28 U.S.C. § 331; and the Judiciary Act of 1925  at 43 Stat. 936 (providing for “discretionary appellate jurisdiction”).  In reconsidering these delegations Congress must recall the sorry acts of German judges, lawyers, and law schools permitting the usurping of Constitutional rights under the Weimar Republic aiding the NAZI to power, because, “[b]y the time the gas vans came and the human slaughter factories were built in Auschwitz and the other death camps, the murder of the six million Jews and other persecuted minorities was done completely within the framework of German law.” Yad Vshem, The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes Remembrance Authority, 2004.

Thus, it is obvious that our Republic cannot survive the unbridled tyranny and cronyism of government attorneys and judges, and then surreally place themselves above and beyond the law by unilaterally declaring themselves absolutely immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act and/or civil RICO. See, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (Friedman, J.); DC Ct. Of App. No. 07-5234; cert denied Docket No. 08-411. See also denial of Mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 3771, USSCT Docket No 08-339 (http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror).

Query, if I with more than 35 years of federal trail/appellate civil litigation experience can be targeted for punishment by the government/courts for petitioning Congress and litigating to exercise my federal statutory rights as a father and federal litigator-what is either layman father or an inexperience attorney to do to protect their rights against acts of malfeasance and cronyism of government attorneys and judges?

Consequently, I respectfully request that in addition to investigating the denial of access to an impartial court you confirm that law enforcement in the District of Columbia comply with their legal obligation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 3771, to protect me as a victim an interstate criminal conspiracy (See, Exhibit 1, and  http://home.earthlink.net/~malfeasance); as well as request that the President direct the Solicitor General to file by September 25, 2009, a response in support of the consideration my petition for certiorari on the issue of malfeasance by the courts and government attorneys, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. U.S. Ct. of App. for the D. C. Circuit, Docket No. 09-237.

Sincerely,

Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.

*The linchpins of this interstate conspiracy was: (1) for Beltway Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder et al., to file fraudulent bar complaints from D.C. in retaliation for my litigating to enforce statutory rights; (2) for the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) issue a void order revoking my license for litigating to enforce my statutory rights as a father; and, (3) the DC Committee on admission to stay the processing of my waiver application or provide a hearing based on the VSBDB void order.

**Court records evidence a conspiracy of judges in the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits with Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Eric Holder er al. to deny me access to impartial judicial review of VSBDB void order in violation of the Void Order Doctrine, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803),  Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714 (1877), Nelson v. Warden, 262 Va. 276, 552 S.E.2d 73 (2001), Selling v. Redford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917), Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278 (1957), and Rules Enabling Act; and, to refuse to protect me as a victim of malfeasance as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3771.