Source: https://isidororodriguez.com/2018/02/23/request-to-the-honorable-ralph-s-northam-to-meet-to-provide-evidence-of-unlawful-acts-of-virginias-attorneys-and-judges-in-violation-of-art-vi-of-va-const-and-va-code/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:00:38+00:00

Document:
Petition for Congressional Investigation of Government Attorneys, Employees, and Justices/Judges Self-proclaimed Impunity and Absolute Immunity from Accountability for Misprision of Felony in violation of 18 U.S. §§ 241 & 242 and VA Code §§ 18.2 481 & 482.
Petition for Oversight Investigation of Government Employees, including Attorneys, Judges, and Justices for their Misprision of Felony and their Self-proclaimed Impunity and Absolute Immunity from Accountability.
REQUEST TO THE HONORABLE RALPH S. NORTHAM TO MEET TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL ACTS OF VIRGINIA’S ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES IN VIOLATION OF ART. VI OF VA CONST., AND VA CODE.
Re: Request to meet to Provide Evidence of The Supreme Court of Virginia’s Issuance of Unlawful Court Rules Violating the Art IV of the Constitution of Virginia, VA Code, The Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, and The Mandate of Due Process Under 5th& 14th Amend to U.S. Constitution.
To comply with the mandate to provide due process under the 5th & 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Art. I of the Constitution of Virginia, the following four questions must be answered: (a) pursuant to what authority did the Court create the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”) as a lower “court” with jurisdiction and judicial authority to discipline attorneys?; (b) pursuant to what authority did the Court choose\appoint VSBDB members as “judges”?; (c) pursuant to what authority did the Court create under its control a centralized attorney discipline system in defiance of the General Assembly’s decentralized attorney discipline system under VA Code §§ 54-1-3915 & 3935?; and, (d) pursuant to what authority did the Court grant itself, judges on the Fairfax Court Cir. and Court of Appeals, government attorneys, and employees, “impunity” and absolute immunity for “resisting the execution of the laws under color of authority” in violation of VA Code §§ 18.2‑481 & 482? (See Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., et al., No. 081146 (2008); Fairfax Cir Ct. No CL-2007-1796).
Regarding these limitations on the Judicial Branch, query, “[t]o what purpose are [the Court’s] powers limited, and to what purpose are those limitation in writing [on the Court], if these limitations may, at any time, be passed over and ignored by [the Court who is] intended to be restrained, controlled and limited?” [Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 176 (1803)].
Please have your staff contact me as to a time and date for me to drive to your office.
 The Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, in accordance with due process mandates that when an entity does not have either constitutional authority, or legal power, or jurisdiction to render any act or order, said act or order is void ab initio—therefore not lawful and not subject stare decisis/res judicata or enforcement because said act or order is a complete nullity from its issuance, and may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, at any time, or in any manner. See, Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390, 402 (2007); Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51‑52(2001); Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705 (1925); Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95(1987); and Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352 (1803).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.