Source: https://isidororodriguez.com/isidoro-rodriguezs-statement-in-support-his-being-the-2019-republican-candidate-for-the-virginia-general-assembly-senate-district-035-seat/in-the-supreme-court-of-virginia-petition-for-appeal-record-no-isidoro-rodriguez-plaintiff-petitioner-pro-per-v-the-general-assembly-of-virginia-the-office-of-the-governor-of-virginia-the/
Timestamp: 2019-05-21 17:19:38
Document Index: 199101427

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 9', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§18', '§ 8', '§ 8']

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PETITION FOR APPEAL, RECORD NO. ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Petitioner Pro Per, v. The General Assembly of Virginia, The Office of the Governor of Virginia, The Supreme Court of Virginia, The Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, The Virginia State Bar, and The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, Defendants-Respondents. | Accountability for Violation of the Common Law By Acts Outside the Sphere of Legislative/Judicial Authority and Employment
The Circuit Court erred under VA Code § 1-200 (2005) in violation of the Common Law exception to Sovereign Immunity for acts outside the sphere of legislative authority, scope judicial authority, and scope of employment by the defiance of the separation of power under Art. I §§ 5 and Art. VI §§ 1, 5, & 7 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VA Const.), the amending procedure under Art. XII § 1 VA Const., and the prohibition on ex post facto laws under Art. I § 9 VA Const., by enacting VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (2017) to retroactively adopt the 1998 court rules issued in violation of VA Code § 54.1‑3915 (1950-2017), VA Code § 54.1‑3935 (1950-2009), and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine, as alleged in Petitioner’s Complaint.
The Circuit Court erred by a grave injustice in not impaneling a Special Grand Jury to investigate and report on the evidence of Class 2 & 6 Felony under VA Code §§18.2-481 & 482 to “resist the execution of the laws under color of authority” and misdemeanor business conspiracy under VA Code 18.2-499 & 500, as alleged in Petitioner’s Complaint.
The Circuit Court erred in violation of the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine by the use of Res Judicata to dismiss the Complaint.
The Circuit Court erred in granting Respondent’s Demure based on a misnomer, lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
The Circuit Court erred in holding that the General Assembly cannot be served under court-ordered publication VA Code §§ 8.01-316(b) & 318.
I. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN VIOLATING THE COMMON LAW EXCEPTION TO THE DEFENSE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. (Assignment of Error No. 1)
Regarding the defense of Sovereign Immunity, Common Law only permitted its use when a defendant was acting within legal authority. This is consistent the Magna Carta which held officials and judges accountable for acts outside of their legal authority and jurisdiction. As explained by Sir Edward Coke, 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038‑41,
II. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN NOT EMPANELING A SPECIAL GRAND JURY TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL ACTS OUTSIDE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY. (Assignment of Error No. 2)
But the record confirms this was never done (Plaintiff’s Exhibit G1). All of the courts issued void order outside of their jurisdiction and constitutional authority in violation of the common law exception to the claim of sovereign immunity and the Void Ab Initio Order Doctrine to grant government employees and judges “impunity” for violations of the VA Const., and VA Code. Court records confirm that all of the dismissals were for lack of venue “without prejudice,” or specifically “declined to rule on [Respondents] plea of res judicata,” or and did not address the allegations of a business conspiracy. Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist. Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (PF), DC Ct. App. N. 07-5334, injunction denied SC Ct. No. 07A601, cert. denied US Sup Ct. 08-411(2008); see also, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Hon. Hassell et al., Fairfax Circuit Court No. CL-2007-15396, VA S. Ct. No. 081146, cert. denied 08-574 (2008). See petitions for redress to the General Assembly (Plaintiff’s Exhibit D and I), Complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) (P-926-16), and a Petition with the United Nations Committee on Human Rights for the grant of “impunity” (see http://www.isidororodriguez.com).
IV. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DEMURE BASED ON LACK OF STANDING, MISNOMER, AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. (Assignment of Error No. 4)
V. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CANNOT BE SERVED UNDER VA CODE §§ 8.01-316(B) & 318 BY COURT-ORDERED PUBLICATION. (ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5)