Good morning. Are you Mr. Rodriguez? Yes, Your Honor. All right. This matter is before the court when your application, because you were subjected to the automatic disarmament of the provisions of the disciplinary rule upon the disarmament in Virginia and you want to be reinstated. Let me say this to you about the proceedings. You had filed some papers with a court. And in the papers, you indicated that, oh, by the way, the other judges are Judge Fisher who's on video conference. And Judge Ambrose here, of course, I'm Judge Greenberg. You had been... Good morning, everyone. Good morning to you, sir. You had filed some papers that indicated you wanted to relieve beyond the simply granting reinstatement, more or less than a man-damage. Well, why don't you come up to the podium, sir? More or less than in the nature of a man-damage
. But Mr.... You were advised by the court that... by reason of the fact that there was a $450 filing fee with that, that those matters really weren't proceeding. And as far as the best of my knowledge, I fee was never paid. Is that right? Yes, Your Honor. The espionage wasn't paid. I'm sorry. It was not paid. All right. So the only thing pending here, which is certainly something we hear, the other matters are really just lies, but not filed by the question of the reinstatement
. So I just wanted to get that clear, sir. All right, we'll hear you on that, sir. All right. Good morning. I make physical work. I'm Mr. Dorald Reyes. But to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Board of Order doctrine, I'm petitioned for reconsideration of this Court's automatic revocation of my right to practice before it. In summary, without notice and hearing, this Court revoked my license based on the illegal board order issued by the Virginia State Bar Discipline Board and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The facts in detail are cited in my brief that I filed in July of 2008. But I will summarize them because they were noting. My license was revoked in retaliation for my petitioning Congress and litigating to secure my federal statutory rights under the treaty and under the Virginia Code to compel the Department of State and Department of Justice and their independent contractor to secure the visitation rights of my then 14-year-old son back United States. As a caveat, my son was illegally taken out of the United States as a US citizen and returned to the Republic of Columbia. Although at that time, the Republic of Columbia was both and still is, considered too dangerous for United States citizens and there was a high risk of kidnapping. In furtherance of this criminal conspiracy and violation of 18 U
.S.C. 241-242-1513, there was an enterprise to essentially deprived me of my right to employment as an attorney in retaliation, punishment, in effect. To this end, Mr. Eric Holder with law firm of coming to the Burley, law firm of Pralker Rose from the District of Columbia, first contacted the committee on admission for the DC bar to investigate me and then subsequently the Virginia State bar to investigate me. The DC bar found that I, being a member of the federal courts, I was not violation of their rules. However, the Virginia State bar began an investigation of the beginning of 2003 and running in 2006 when a hearing was held outside of their administrative authority, which is cited in the actual statutes and regulations, which are restricts of Virginia State bar to the administrative arm of the Virginia Supreme Court. A hearing was held in violation of that Virginia code and my license was revoked for litigating two and four slight federal statutes for rights. There's obviously a number of problems with that, not the least of which is the clear criminal violation of punishing somebody for enforcing their federal rights. In addition to that, the Polar Edel contacted my former client on my client, who had been managing a lawsuit against the Republican Columbia for Treasurer Troll, some of the coast, to file a complaint because I was litigating to enforce my Virginia perfected statutory lien. In other words, I had a federal right and had a Virginia statutory right, which under the rules of enabling act was supposed to have been enforced by the federal court because of the substantive property right. There were 12 years I had worked against, against the Republic of Columbia, and so a significant amount of money was owed to me. On December 15th of 2006, subsequent to the Virginia State bar revoked my license. I had notified all the courts and requested a show course hearing based on the void order doctrine. That is under the Constitution of Virginia and under the Virginia code, the Virginia State bar had no authority as a court of record and had no authority to revoke anyone's license
. And the Supreme Court of Virginia was specifically restricted and prohibited both under the code, as well as the Constitution of Virginia for delegating any authority. The only body under the Constitution of Virginia can give judicial authority is the General Assembly by creating courts of records. You appealed from that decision and did you raise it to the Supreme Court of Virginia? Yes, I did. I raised it both to the Supreme Court, I raised it to the Virginia State bar, noting that the procedure that the Virginia State bar had in place was illegal. And that was noted, but apparently the Virginia Supreme Court must not have agreed with you because they affirmed it. They simply said that they didn't say anything on the issue of my challenge to that jurisdiction issue, the substantive jurisdiction, they simply just affirmed that the Virginia State bar or the Virginia State disciplinary board had rights and they affirmed it. They did not go into any issue of the merits as to the underlying constitutional and Virginia code statute. That subsequently went to a position for search of the Supreme Court who also affirmed it. Now you have to understand. Did they affirm it or deny it or so? I'm sorry, they denied it, sir. They effectively affirmed by granting, by denying in search they essentially affirmed what the Supreme Court of Virginia had done. And that, they wouldn't tell, they would tell you, they didn't, they would tell you there's a distinction. But that's not true. I understand that, John, I've argued before this from Supreme Court and I've won cases before them. And part of this is that because I had been an aggressive litigation attorney for civil rights over the last 30 years, I've been, something might chance, particularly over the last 20 years against the Department of Justice's violation of rights, but they have his status
. And one of the issues that, when they took my son out of the country, I filed a motion first with justice, then she's just as a rancorist to stay because they were taking a US citizen out of the United States. And I had never heard of that. My 13 year old son wanted to stay in the United States with his father because of the dangers. And plus the opportunities here. When that was denied, I filed an immediate motion to then associate justice, Sandra O'Connor, and she granted this state. And I know that beginning in roughly about 1990, when I was litigating against the abuses of the Department of Justice, a lot of people were very angry. And in fact, when I argued the case in the Supreme Court in 1995, Martinez versus L'Amagroi DEA, and DEA, excuse me. The issue was essentially that they were not accustomed to having someone say, you do not have absolutely immunity and you cannot act in violation of the Constitution. And it was noted by the court that I was the only American lawyer who lived outside the United States who was litigating instead of a court. And I know, I know because people had told me that I was being, I'd go to court on tax cases and people would ask me, immediately if I was a US citizen. I just like to make a point very clearly. My father served in World War I, my uncle served in World War II, I served in Vietnam, and to me to have my son taken out of the United States is a pouring. But not only is it important to me, because I don't have the ability to fight for the thousands of people that were affected by this. In any case, returning back to the issue, I then requested all of the federal courts to provide me a show course here because the void order was in violation of Virginia law. Void, no void, and it had no right to impact it
. And since 2006, I've been denied employment as an attorney. I've been denied unemployment compensation based on void orders. And that's the essential reason why this has to be vacated. Do you know that this court and a federal court cannot tell we are bound by the rulings of a state Supreme Court as to what the law is of that state? And this comes up regularly in diversity cases, which we hear quite a few of. In other words, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will make a ruling and we're not bound by the Superior Court, which is the interim here in the media area of Pellet Court, but we are bound. And we can't say that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is wrong on Pennsylvania law. If they're violating due process of the Constitution, that's a different issue. It's a issue as to the meaning of Pennsylvania law. Well, it's not only Pennsylvania law, Your Honor, it's not only when we took oaths of become attorneys and when you all took oaths as judges. And if you were in the military, when you took oaths as servicemen, you all swore to defend the United States Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Virginia Supreme Court cannot create laws that violate fundamental rights. And what has happened here is because of the fact that I litigated as a father under federal treaty to defend my rights and my son, I have been punished by the Linchpin. And although it was a very weak Linchpin, other Virginia Supreme Court and the Virginia State Bar were evoking my license. Now, the court is revoking my license based on that order. They cannot deny me due process by not looking at behind it
. I mean, that would be the same as if McDonald's food issued in order to say, you no longer can practice law. But that's fine except McDonald's food doesn't have that authority. And that's where, that is where the problem lies. Did the, I know that you tried to get the United States quarter of appeals for the fourth circuit to grant you, man, Damace against them. But that was denied. I have a hearing tomorrow, I'm sorry, the 25th Thursday with the fourth circuit. After two years of my petitioning them for a show course hearing, I also have filed as maybe a petition for VITA man, Damace the United States Supreme Court. Well, you just sent some papers in on that. Part of the, you sent some papers very recently. On the letter, yes, asking the Supreme Court, because both the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as the fourth circuit, which are under the purview of Chief Justice Roberts, who was, who made full statements to Congress as confirmation hearing, has failed to act to protect me from an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Now, I've been practicing 33 years. Where is to those statements involved, you? What, yes, you're on it. Yes, because you see, the lawsuit that I had filed was for two facets. In 2003, I filed the lawsuit. The number one, compelled the United States to partner justice in the United States, the partner state to comply with their treaty obligations and implement the treaty
. And number two, I assume to that, to secure my son's return to the United States under the treaty for visitation rights. Instead, what happened was that Justice Richard W. Roberts, District Judge, sat on the case for two years, from 2003 into March of 2005, when my son became 16 years old, and then similarly said that the case was moved because my son was 16. However, under the Virginia UCCJA, and this was confirmed by decision in 2006, also by the full circuit in a different case, held that the Virginia courts had jurisdiction until he was 18 to provide for visitation. Now, in that, which is cited in the brief, I specify, in Canterbury, Canada, the fourth circuit, held that the State Department and the courts of Virginia were responsible for secure international visitation. To cite that, my rights as a father were obstructed with. My son now is now is in the sophomore year of Virginia Tech, he's come up, there was no successful attempt to alienate my affection because he knew as I was fighting for him. But the issue is that there has been substantial violations of my rights both as a father and as an attorney, that the federal court cannot simply say, well, our basis of diversity jurisdiction here is that, we can't do anything with the Virginia. That's not true. Virginia came in here and said to you all, we have an order that revolts through a graces license. And you all have got to comply with that order. Well, the only problem is is the order is void. It is issued by an entity that has no judicial authority and it was affirmed and I've gone through the whole board order that I can cite them. The fact is, and I will very simply say it, an attorney is an officer of the court for life, whose office cannot be taken from him, except for cause, established by due process of law, as is clearly established by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. The right to contract and to gauge in the profession, to gauge in any of the common occupations of life, where a person's good name, reputation, honor, integrity is at stake because that government is doing to him, notice an opportunity to be heard or essential
. To be deprived, not only of the present point, but the future point for us certainly is no small injury. The Supreme Court has held an invalid void order in NEPF, and the point where we be NEPF is of void judgment and no judgment without any legal effect. And what has happened is for two years, legal effect has been given to avoid decision by a non-judicial body. Well, let me ask you this question. There must be, I don't know how many, disparmer, precincts in Virginia, but obviously, your ears is not the only one. In other cases, do they use the same procedure? Well, that was a decision in 2003, where an attorney raised the issue that he wanted to appear before the court. And the Supreme Court of Virginia essentially circumcised the statute by deleting the first sentence of the paragraph that says, and it's in appendix, and in the addendum at H.D., which prohibits the Supreme Court of Virginia. 3915, not extending the foreboding provisions of this order of the Supreme Court should not promite rules of regulations for striving a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys, which are inconsistent with any statute. They took out that sentence, and then they went on and said, that we have created a system, and you will follow that system. Well, the system is inconsistent with the statute. But as the system used, so it is the, they didn't single you out then. So the system is entirely void. But the system is used all the time in Virginia
. No. Apparently what happens is that's lawyers who are guilty of a couple of actions, go to some ex bar attorney who is knowledgeable of the system, and they continue within the process of the system. Let's assume for the moment you're right. And the Virginia Supreme Court has disbarged you effective October of 2006, or you were disbarred, then you appealed to the Supreme Court, and then you asked for search for a right to the United States Supreme Court, which is exactly what you're supposed to do. That, in effect, they've affirmed it, as you've said. We can't do anything about that because of the Rockefeller doctorate. You can't appeal to an intermediate court of appeals, especially in another jurisdiction, with regard to something that's been done in the state court in Virginia. And you went through the right process, and unfortunately for you, you weren't successful. What can we possibly do? Well, two. Well, number one is reinstave you back to this court. That's number one, based on the board order doctor. The issue, the second issue, of the violation of the Virginia Supreme Court and the Virginia State Bar is part of a recollection that I have now gone for before the Supreme Court. But you agree that we can't say, especially after it's already been decided in this ratio to kind of, we can't say, as a third circuit, that's something that was done by a commonwealth of Virginia, and the fourth circuit was null and void. Well, I'm not certain of that. Well, I can, or like in, what are I, or like in, or like in say is this. I have been, I have been, in violation of federal law, deprived of my rights. As an idealist, but an idealist, obviously, with no illusion, I would expect to be protected both by the Department of Justice and those law enforcement segments that filed criminal complaints over the last four years. All the courts. Now, the reality is, and this is a sad reality that I've come away with, there has been a collusion between the Department of Justice and through the issue branch, at least in the billway. Now, I don't expect the court to carry my order. That, I mean, I will do my own lifting. The issue is, before this court, the initial issue is, my right to be reinstated based on the void order doctrine and the Fifth Amendment, because the void order doctrine says very clearly, if an issue, if an AA court has no jurisdiction and has acted outside of authority, the judgment that they issued is void, but we're not even talking about a court. We're talking about an administrative body who has been given authority under an illegal system. But again, let's assume you're right. What can we possibly do other than entertain or reinstatement petition? I guess that's the only thing, that I, that, if that is what the court believes, that there's something else. Well, in fact, that's the only thing you had before us. That's how we call, at the outset, years are correct. That is what's up before you know, right? Because I didn't have the, since I've had been unemployed for over two years, I don't have the $450 issued to rhythm and things. But that, that, that, that apart. Are you eligible to practice before any federal court right now? Yes, I'm, I'm still a member of the fourth circuit, the second circuit, the federal circuit, the VC circuit, the tax court
. I have been, I have been, in violation of federal law, deprived of my rights. As an idealist, but an idealist, obviously, with no illusion, I would expect to be protected both by the Department of Justice and those law enforcement segments that filed criminal complaints over the last four years. All the courts. Now, the reality is, and this is a sad reality that I've come away with, there has been a collusion between the Department of Justice and through the issue branch, at least in the billway. Now, I don't expect the court to carry my order. That, I mean, I will do my own lifting. The issue is, before this court, the initial issue is, my right to be reinstated based on the void order doctrine and the Fifth Amendment, because the void order doctrine says very clearly, if an issue, if an AA court has no jurisdiction and has acted outside of authority, the judgment that they issued is void, but we're not even talking about a court. We're talking about an administrative body who has been given authority under an illegal system. But again, let's assume you're right. What can we possibly do other than entertain or reinstatement petition? I guess that's the only thing, that I, that, if that is what the court believes, that there's something else. Well, in fact, that's the only thing you had before us. That's how we call, at the outset, years are correct. That is what's up before you know, right? Because I didn't have the, since I've had been unemployed for over two years, I don't have the $450 issued to rhythm and things. But that, that, that, that apart. Are you eligible to practice before any federal court right now? Yes, I'm, I'm still a member of the fourth circuit, the second circuit, the federal circuit, the VC circuit, the tax court. And I've asked all of them for the last two years, provide me with an immediate show course hearing, because this is impacting my right to employment. So you're appearing before the fourth circuit on this 25th, you said? There's 25th, we, we, we, and they, what's, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You go ahead, you bet. No, I, they, in the Eastern District of Virginia where I am, I was a member, they automatically did with both my license also, I filed a TRO to prohibit that based on the snowing, rolling that they have to give me notice an opportunity to be heard. Have you, when did you last practice law in this court? I have, I had a papers here in 95 or 96. Because, well, so it appeared to us in examining the court records that you had not practiced any time in this court after the Virginia proceedings. No, you're, and I, it's pretty quite a few years, that's what we thought. Yeah, actually, when I went down to Columbia, I went down to Columbia as General Counsel for a construction project, then handled this issue dealing with the treasureship, and then came up here for various cases dealing with against the Department of Justice. In any case, there was one case, a couple of cases I had here in the sixth circuit, but then after that, I'm trying to force my attorney's name, which apparently under Virginia, there's a Hispanic exception also that I can't get into that perfected attorney's name in force. That's what I've been fighting, because this is a considerable amount of money for 12 years that I served the client. American client. Are you Mr. Rodriguez? Can I ask you a question? You said you filed a 95 or 96 in our court. Did you ever seek formal admission in our court? Yeah, yeah, yes, Your Honor. I remember, I've been a member of the court since I think 93
. And I've asked all of them for the last two years, provide me with an immediate show course hearing, because this is impacting my right to employment. So you're appearing before the fourth circuit on this 25th, you said? There's 25th, we, we, we, and they, what's, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You go ahead, you bet. No, I, they, in the Eastern District of Virginia where I am, I was a member, they automatically did with both my license also, I filed a TRO to prohibit that based on the snowing, rolling that they have to give me notice an opportunity to be heard. Have you, when did you last practice law in this court? I have, I had a papers here in 95 or 96. Because, well, so it appeared to us in examining the court records that you had not practiced any time in this court after the Virginia proceedings. No, you're, and I, it's pretty quite a few years, that's what we thought. Yeah, actually, when I went down to Columbia, I went down to Columbia as General Counsel for a construction project, then handled this issue dealing with the treasureship, and then came up here for various cases dealing with against the Department of Justice. In any case, there was one case, a couple of cases I had here in the sixth circuit, but then after that, I'm trying to force my attorney's name, which apparently under Virginia, there's a Hispanic exception also that I can't get into that perfected attorney's name in force. That's what I've been fighting, because this is a considerable amount of money for 12 years that I served the client. American client. Are you Mr. Rodriguez? Can I ask you a question? You said you filed a 95 or 96 in our court. Did you ever seek formal admission in our court? Yeah, yeah, yes, Your Honor. I remember, I've been a member of the court since I think 93. Well, what, guys? Let's go ahead, Judge, for sure. I'm sorry. But that was still, I didn't see that from the records, and I just wanted to clarify that. So you were formally admitted, you think, around 1993. In my criminal letter, I think, it was around March 1993. There were a number of cases I was handing out of the second circuit that it also was in third circuit. And around the same time I was admitted both to the second and third circuit on a pellet, you're dealing with a pellet cases. Are you admitted? Thank you. I'm sorry. Are you admitted? Thank you. Are you admitted served to the State Bar anywhere at this point than to any States Bar? The only bars I am currently admitted in Goodstanding and the United States Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Federal Circuit, the District and the United States Tax Court. What court? Now, we don't administer bar exams and the admissions here are always reciprocal to admissions and other courts. And traditionally, a person's admitted and pencil, but he can't be admitted somewhere else, anyway. And they submit papers to this court a certificate of good standing from the other state. What was the court on which you relied for admission here? You're admission to what court? Virginia State Bar, since 1982
. Well, what, guys? Let's go ahead, Judge, for sure. I'm sorry. But that was still, I didn't see that from the records, and I just wanted to clarify that. So you were formally admitted, you think, around 1993. In my criminal letter, I think, it was around March 1993. There were a number of cases I was handing out of the second circuit that it also was in third circuit. And around the same time I was admitted both to the second and third circuit on a pellet, you're dealing with a pellet cases. Are you admitted? Thank you. I'm sorry. Are you admitted? Thank you. Are you admitted served to the State Bar anywhere at this point than to any States Bar? The only bars I am currently admitted in Goodstanding and the United States Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Federal Circuit, the District and the United States Tax Court. What court? Now, we don't administer bar exams and the admissions here are always reciprocal to admissions and other courts. And traditionally, a person's admitted and pencil, but he can't be admitted somewhere else, anyway. And they submit papers to this court a certificate of good standing from the other state. What was the court on which you relied for admission here? You're admission to what court? Virginia State Bar, since 1982. So you applied here on the basis of your admission of Virginia. Good standing, you're right. I've been in, you were in good standing on your admitted year of Virginia. From 1982 until this board order of 2006, I've been an active member of the Virginia State Bar. And you're not a member of that of the State Bar anywhere else. No, you're. My practice, as I noted was unique. It was in South America representing non-resident aliens here. And in fact, that was one of the reasons why I wanted to be admitted to the District of Columbia. As you know, the venue for non-residents who have no contact with the United States is in the District of Columbia. Let me hear you this, sir. We have massive papers here, which I've pointed through, and read them. And one of the papers dealt with a pending proceeding in which it was, it were proceedings charging you with the unlawful practice of law at this point or in Virginia. Whatever happened to those? Nothing, Your Honor. The issue was that when I wrote to the General Assembly of Virginia requesting an investigation and impeachment of the Supreme Court of Virginia for violating of the Constitution and statute on the letterhead that I submitted, it said that a member of the Virginia State Bar since 1982, I noted in my response to the Virginia State Bar that my letterhead had been created, but if they wish to go forward, I'd be glad to go to any jury trial
. So you applied here on the basis of your admission of Virginia. Good standing, you're right. I've been in, you were in good standing on your admitted year of Virginia. From 1982 until this board order of 2006, I've been an active member of the Virginia State Bar. And you're not a member of that of the State Bar anywhere else. No, you're. My practice, as I noted was unique. It was in South America representing non-resident aliens here. And in fact, that was one of the reasons why I wanted to be admitted to the District of Columbia. As you know, the venue for non-residents who have no contact with the United States is in the District of Columbia. Let me hear you this, sir. We have massive papers here, which I've pointed through, and read them. And one of the papers dealt with a pending proceeding in which it was, it were proceedings charging you with the unlawful practice of law at this point or in Virginia. Whatever happened to those? Nothing, Your Honor. The issue was that when I wrote to the General Assembly of Virginia requesting an investigation and impeachment of the Supreme Court of Virginia for violating of the Constitution and statute on the letterhead that I submitted, it said that a member of the Virginia State Bar since 1982, I noted in my response to the Virginia State Bar that my letterhead had been created, but if they wish to go forward, I'd be glad to go to any jury trial. And that's the other issue I have been denied. In all of my civil actions, access to a jury of based on the evidence of what is going on here. The trial, I smile because I'm too big to cry because I am 63 years old. I've been working for two white houses. I've gone to war. I have argued with the Supreme Court, but the tragedy of what is going on in this issue doesn't only affect me. It affects our very foundation of our republic because the independence of an independent legal attorney system is being violated. Any lawyer, effective that who shoes to enforce his federal rights could have his license taken away. Why did the, I read the course, the proceedings of the discipline, committee, and Virginia. And what was the reason they gave though for disburing you? Yes, it was. They not decided in the firm, there were two bar complaints that were filed by the National Center, or the Department of Justice, filed one bar complaint for my litigating aggressively under the treaty. They also then contacted my former client who filed a bar complaint for my litigating to enforce my Virginia attorney's law. And reading those two decisions, what they said was they didn't discuss the statute to our rights. They just simply said because of my aggressive litigation that my license was being revoked. That was the reason
. And that's the other issue I have been denied. In all of my civil actions, access to a jury of based on the evidence of what is going on here. The trial, I smile because I'm too big to cry because I am 63 years old. I've been working for two white houses. I've gone to war. I have argued with the Supreme Court, but the tragedy of what is going on in this issue doesn't only affect me. It affects our very foundation of our republic because the independence of an independent legal attorney system is being violated. Any lawyer, effective that who shoes to enforce his federal rights could have his license taken away. Why did the, I read the course, the proceedings of the discipline, committee, and Virginia. And what was the reason they gave though for disburing you? Yes, it was. They not decided in the firm, there were two bar complaints that were filed by the National Center, or the Department of Justice, filed one bar complaint for my litigating aggressively under the treaty. They also then contacted my former client who filed a bar complaint for my litigating to enforce my Virginia attorney's law. And reading those two decisions, what they said was they didn't discuss the statute to our rights. They just simply said because of my aggressive litigation that my license was being revoked. That was the reason. Both to enforce my perfected Virginia, and when I say perfected, in 1990, after I filed lawsuit or managed to lawsuit to sue the Republic of Columbia on behalf of the U.S. companies interest for treasure trove that was filed in 1992, I went to the Virginia bar because the first contract was an hourly contract. I went to the Virginia State Board to get authorization to sue my client because they were not paying my fees. And I was sitting in the Republic of Columbia. The Virginia State Board issued an order saying, yes, I could sue my client in case of fraud because my duty, to do so, duty as a member of the Virginia State Board was anywhere I was in the world. And based on that, I filed a letter to the, I got detained to lawyer out in the state of Washington and my client changed it from an hourly to contingency. And under Virginia State law, a contingency fee contract stays in co-hate until the court reoccurres. Now in the Virginia bar presiding, my client admitted that they transferred assets to another enemy. They admitted that the local Columbia Council that I had, they raised the percentage of his fees. And so there's something there, because you don't raise zero 10% to 20% of zero because it's still zero. What it is, I don't know, because I can't get access to a partial court to get my fees enforced. So if you read the two decisions, that's what the two decisions you do. There's no taking of clients, funds, there's no sexual in you. It's simply because I was an aggressive attorney, defend my federal and state statutory rights
. Both to enforce my perfected Virginia, and when I say perfected, in 1990, after I filed lawsuit or managed to lawsuit to sue the Republic of Columbia on behalf of the U.S. companies interest for treasure trove that was filed in 1992, I went to the Virginia bar because the first contract was an hourly contract. I went to the Virginia State Board to get authorization to sue my client because they were not paying my fees. And I was sitting in the Republic of Columbia. The Virginia State Board issued an order saying, yes, I could sue my client in case of fraud because my duty, to do so, duty as a member of the Virginia State Board was anywhere I was in the world. And based on that, I filed a letter to the, I got detained to lawyer out in the state of Washington and my client changed it from an hourly to contingency. And under Virginia State law, a contingency fee contract stays in co-hate until the court reoccurres. Now in the Virginia bar presiding, my client admitted that they transferred assets to another enemy. They admitted that the local Columbia Council that I had, they raised the percentage of his fees. And so there's something there, because you don't raise zero 10% to 20% of zero because it's still zero. What it is, I don't know, because I can't get access to a partial court to get my fees enforced. So if you read the two decisions, that's what the two decisions you do. There's no taking of clients, funds, there's no sexual in you. It's simply because I was an aggressive attorney, defend my federal and state statutory rights. And this, the implication of this is far reaching. I often, for the last seven years, in order to pay my life bills, while litigated to enforce my rights, they took contract between positions to do murder and acquisitions. And I look at these young lawyers, I couldn't understand why they were just so insipid. Why were they not fired up? And what we've got is transactional lawyers, we don't have any longer litigators. You filed these papers quite recently with the Supreme Court of the United States. Yes, on it. And it said for, they have, I read them, but I assume that you haven't gotten any response from that so quickly. It was documented and it was, the solicitor general was supposed to respond by the 19th of October. So that's still pending? Yes, Toronto. All right, we have your argument. Is there anything else you want to present to us? So, just, I mean, I know it's in the record because Mr. Paul will send you a letter, I think, with you. Yes, Your Honor. The only thing I just underscored is that the entire system, I've only cited part of the procedure, the two first sections, but the procedure that was enacted by the Virginia General Assembly with regard to the replication of attorney's license and there's a site there dealing with a 1923 decision with the Supreme Court noted that they didn't have authority to affect throughout the state. And so the Virginia General Assembly, and I started the law of the article that talks about it, passed this statute specifically to give court for record the ability to evoke in attorney's license
. And this, the implication of this is far reaching. I often, for the last seven years, in order to pay my life bills, while litigated to enforce my rights, they took contract between positions to do murder and acquisitions. And I look at these young lawyers, I couldn't understand why they were just so insipid. Why were they not fired up? And what we've got is transactional lawyers, we don't have any longer litigators. You filed these papers quite recently with the Supreme Court of the United States. Yes, on it. And it said for, they have, I read them, but I assume that you haven't gotten any response from that so quickly. It was documented and it was, the solicitor general was supposed to respond by the 19th of October. So that's still pending? Yes, Toronto. All right, we have your argument. Is there anything else you want to present to us? So, just, I mean, I know it's in the record because Mr. Paul will send you a letter, I think, with you. Yes, Your Honor. The only thing I just underscored is that the entire system, I've only cited part of the procedure, the two first sections, but the procedure that was enacted by the Virginia General Assembly with regard to the replication of attorney's license and there's a site there dealing with a 1923 decision with the Supreme Court noted that they didn't have authority to affect throughout the state. And so the Virginia General Assembly, and I started the law of the article that talks about it, passed this statute specifically to give court for record the ability to evoke in attorney's license. Oh, I had one other question I forgot, which I intended to ask you. You filed a petition with the Virginia legislature seeking the impeachment of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Investigation and impeachment, yes, Your Honor. Yes, what became of that? Politics, Your Honor. No one, no one, I also made a presentation to the Fairfax County members of the General Assembly in January of this year pointing out that what is going on is a usurp being of the powers of the General Assembly by the system. But again, nothing has occurred. I plan on re-initiating that next month, once I got these other, I have two petitions for cert to be filed in the next, well, this week and in the end of the month, but in between those two petitions cert, I will be banging the doors on the legislature of the General Assembly as well as Congress because this issue has far reaching implications. All right, do you have anything else you want to present, sir? No, you want to thank you for your time. Judge Fisher, do you have any questions? I have no additional questions, thank you. I don't either. They're not all concluded proceedings. Let me tell you what happens now. This committee will make a report and recommendation. This is the panel. Here's the matter preliminarily
. Oh, I had one other question I forgot, which I intended to ask you. You filed a petition with the Virginia legislature seeking the impeachment of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Investigation and impeachment, yes, Your Honor. Yes, what became of that? Politics, Your Honor. No one, no one, I also made a presentation to the Fairfax County members of the General Assembly in January of this year pointing out that what is going on is a usurp being of the powers of the General Assembly by the system. But again, nothing has occurred. I plan on re-initiating that next month, once I got these other, I have two petitions for cert to be filed in the next, well, this week and in the end of the month, but in between those two petitions cert, I will be banging the doors on the legislature of the General Assembly as well as Congress because this issue has far reaching implications. All right, do you have anything else you want to present, sir? No, you want to thank you for your time. Judge Fisher, do you have any questions? I have no additional questions, thank you. I don't either. They're not all concluded proceedings. Let me tell you what happens now. This committee will make a report and recommendation. This is the panel. Here's the matter preliminarily. And we make a report and recommendation to the Court. And when I say the Court, by that, I mean the act of judges of this Court, in which, by the way, I am not one, because the rules provide that a senior judge can be on this committee, and I am. And we will make a report and recommendation. Before we make the report and recommendation, though, rescinded to you, and then you have, if you don't accept it, or have objections, or if for whatever reason, you have a certain time, I think it's 20 days, but the notice would indicate it to file exceptions. And then the record plus the report and recommendation had any exceptions if any go to the act of judges of the Court. The Court, and that's what it means. And then it's only the act of judges of the Court that finally make the decision in this matter. So we're serving as a panel to recommend it to the act of judges. Now, as it happens to Jimbo and Judge Fisher are two of those judges, and they all be on that aspect. All right, that'll conclude the proceedings and the card can be sent. I thank the Court for its time. Thank you very much, sir. And thank you for coming, sir. Thank you. Hey, rise
. Court, 10, and adjourned, so 30, 10, 20, 15. Oh. Judge Fisher, should we call? Perhaps people can just evacuate the Court, no, we can discuss Judge Fisher, what was the matter? Maybe someone who's in charge of the shame could wait outside so we can talk. But when we can disconnect, thank you. Thank you very much, sir. COINT Tomorrow, thank you. Thank you very much. I have to you guys lift me