Excluded Scholars One Step Closer to Entry
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is extremely gratified by Judge O'Toole's decision Monday in the litigation involving South African scholar Adam Habib. In that case, the government revoked Professor Habib's visa, refused to act on his re-application, and ultimately rejected it entirely on the grounds that he had "engaged in terrorism," without providing any evidence supporting that claim (or even explaining the basis for the claim).
Judge O'Toole's decision states in no uncertain terms that where constitutional interests of Americans are concerned, the government must provide some justification for its exclusion of a foreign citizen. The opinion is enormously encouraging for those of us who have challenged Professor Habib's exclusion by asserting that it violates our First Amendment right to talk, meet, and engage with speakers holding a variety of views. And as the foremost U.S. organization defending faculty members' rights of research and speech, we are hopeful that this decision will begin to reverse the country's self-imposed isolation from the opinions of others.
The government asserted in this case that while the court may review a visa denial if the government providesa reason for its decision, where the government provides no justification at all for its actions, the decision should be entirely shielded from judicial scrutiny. In his opinion, Judge O'Toole highlights the absurdity of the government's argument, observing, "The incentive [that the government's] proposed interpretation would give the government would be perverse: better to give no reason for a denial so that it would be unreviewable than to give a reason and be second-guessed by a court."
We agree, and are pleased by Judge O'Toole's recognition that the government's position is untenable. The ability to interact face-to-facewith foreign scholars is vitally important to the global exchange of ideas. Both Professor Habib and Tariq Ramadan, one of Europe's leading scholars of Islam (also excluded from this country on ideological grounds, and also the subject of a lawsuit against the government by the AAUP, the ACLU, and other organizations), have been unable to physically attend our scholarly conferences. Instead, they have been forced to speak to our members remotely — hardly an adequate substitute for joining us in person and engaging in the informal conversations and debates that are at least as valuable as formal presentations. Speech is not free when the government gets to choose the means of communication. We look forward to welcoming Professors Habib and Ramadan in person one day soon.
Dec 14th, 2008 at 5:17am
OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE
RE: OPPOSITION TO SENATE CONFIRMATION OF ERIC HOLDER AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DOJ BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF HIS CRIMINAL OBSTRUCT-ION OF THE UNDERSIGN’S FEDERAL STATUTORY RIGHTS AS A FATHER AND ATTORNEY IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1202, AND 1513.
Greetings:
I write as a US. citizen, as a Nam Vet who swore 44 years ago to defend the Constitution, as a former appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administration, as a independent federal civil/human rights litigation attorney who for more than 32 years has successfully represented Hispanics against the malfeasance of DOJ,1 and a supporter of President-elect Obama, because irrespective of being a Republican, Democrat, or Independent the Senate must immediately act to restore the Rule of Law in the U.S. Department of Justice (See Adam Cohen, “Democratic Pressure on Obama to Restore the Rule of Law,” The New York Times, November 14, 2008).
For this reason I oppose the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General because he is a defendant in a pending action under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 and civil RICO action to be filed in the U.S. District Court for D.C., based on the following evidence in the record that establishes that as a Beltway attorney/lobbyist he is the linchpin in a criminal conspiracy since 2003:
First, for five years after my Son was shanghaied to the Republic of Colombia in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204, he did obstruct my Federal and Virginia statutory rights as a Father to compel DOJ to secure my right to international visitations with my U.S. citizen Son, pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on Missing and Abducted Children (“Treaty”), and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act VA Code § 20-124.1 et seq. (“UCCJEA”); and,
Second, in retaliation for my litigating to enforce my rights under Treaty and UCCJEA and petitioning Congress (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1513, he conspired to punish, stigmatize, and deprive me of my right to employment as an attorney.2
Thus, my opposition to Eric Holder is a continuation of my petitions of 2005 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees: (a) for an investigation of the collusion of the Federal Courts and DOJ by abuse of the Judicial Conference Act and the Rules Enabling Act to usurp the authority of Congress, the Constitutional mandates of checks and balances, as well as separation of power, and to deprive citizens of substantive rights; and, (b) my petition opposing the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts for his false statement to Congress aiding and abetting the obstruction of my right to compel DOJ to enforce my rights as a Father under the Treaty and UCCJEA (See http://www.home.earthlink.net/~isidoror/id6.html).
Consequentl y based on the above evidence of malfeasance the Senate must take the opportunity during the confirmation proceedings of not only Eric Holder, bu of all appointments to DOJ to hold hearings on past violations of the Rule of Law and Congressional mandates. For example, the Senate must inquire into the abuse of the Rules Enabling Act to use both summary judgement and Feldman abstention doctrine which has permitted State Court to deprive citizens of due process and parental rights under the Treaty, the surreal holdings of absolute Judicial and Executive Branch immunity for liability from suit for criminal and tortious acts which injure Fathers rights, the denial of RICO civil jury trial on claims of judicial and ministerial malfeasance, and the policy of denying access to an impartial court and the protection to victim of malfeasance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771, through secrete proceedings with DOJ by abuse of the Judicial Conference Act.3
This is because the lessons from history have shown that,
Once certain checks and balances are destroyed, and once certain institutions have been intimidated, the pressure that can turn an open society into a closed one-turn into direct assaults; at that point events tend to occur very rapidly, and a point comes at which there is no easy turning back to the way it used to be. Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot, p. 14, Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2007.4
Therefore, at this critical time for our Republic the Senate must restore the Rule of Law, as well as the integrity and public confidence in DOJ by assuring compliance with the words inscribed on the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department Building: “No Free Government Can Survive That Is Not Based on The Supremacy of Law. Where Law ends, Tyranny Begins, Law Alone Can Give Us Freedom.”
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that I have your support to be given an opportunity to testify and present evidence in opposition at the Senate confirmation hearing of Eric Holder.
Very truly yours,
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
1After I argued and won Martinez v. Lamagno and DOJ/DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed that I was the only known U.S. license practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics, see also Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997)(Litigation that successfully stopped the unlawful seizing by DOJ of all nonresident Hispanic bank accounts in the U.S.)[Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com]
2In retaliation for filing Rodriguez et al., v. National center for Missing and exploited Children et al., Civil Action No. 030120, 2005 WL 736526 (D.C. Cir. March 31, 2005), to compel DOJ to secure visitation rights under the Treaty and UCCJEA, Eric Holder filed fraudulent bar complaints in 2003 with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“VSBDB”). But, the VSBDB issued a void orders as a kangaroo court since the General Assembly granted the power to revoke an attorneys license only to courts-of-record and judges. [See 2007 Petition for Impeachment of Va. Supreme Court, et al., http://www.petitiononline.com/RDL/petition.html; see also http://best-lawyer.tistory.com/entry/Isidoro-Rodriguez-Civil-Rights-La wyerFAMILY-LAW].
3The evidence confirms that in retaliation the Federal Courts have: (I) refused to empanel a Special Grand Jury and denied me access to an impartial court to compel DOJ to protect me as a victim of federal crimes as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), In re Isidoro Rodriguez US S Ct. No. 08-339, Writ denied on November 17, 2008 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3); (II) deprived me of my right to a jury trial in the D. C. under RICO-based on the holding of absolute Judicial and Executive immunity from tortious and criminal liability-and declared lack of venue to maintain a RICO action in D.C., Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor in Chief, Legal Times, et al., US S Ct. No. 08-411, Cert. denied December 1, 2008; and, (III) denied me of procedural and substantive due process right by refusing to enjoin the illegal attorney disciplinary system of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. Chief Justice, Sup. Ct. of VA, et al., US S Ct. No. 08-574, Cert. denied on December 8, 2008.
3The dangers to our Republic and citizens by collusion of DOJ with the Federal Courts are real. ". . . the Courts in our judicial system have, in fact, become the lawmakers, when it is very clear . . . that our Constitution delegated that responsibility to the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures . . . the legal profession has truly changed from being one of the premier professions in our society to a business where the number one objective or bottom line is financial profit . . . " Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret). The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. Dra. Irene Rodriguez
A member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court; Admitted Rep. of Colombia
of the U.S. Ct. of App for 2nd, D.C., and Fed. Cir.; and U.S. Tax Ct.
Northern Virginia Office: South American Office:
7924 Peyton Forest Trail World Trade Center
Annandale, Virginia 22003-1560 Calle 76 No. 54-11, Office 313
Telephone: 703.573.1571/telefax: 571.423.5066 Barranquilla, Colombia
Mobil: 703.470.1457 Telephone: 011.5753.605288
Email: isidoror@earthlink.net E-mail:irenerod@earthlink.net
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com
Jan 5th, 2009 at 3:10am
TO ALL CIVIL LIBERTARIANS:
More evidence that political blogs are subject to government prior restraint and censorship:
FIGHT CENSORSHIP! POST THIS to: blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix
GET POLITICAL w/ VIC LIVINGSTON
Censorship of political blogs appears to be alive and doing ill -- destroying freedom of speech in America.
NowPublic.com columnist Vic Livingston is not being permitted to post the message below to The Washington Post's influential political blog, "The Fix."
He's getting a full-screen message saying the post is "being held for the blog owner." Vic will bet the farm that this is a "spoofed page" being inserted into his data stream by over-zealous government spies who are unjustly tampering with his telecommunications -- part of what he believes is an unconstitutional campaign of extrajudicial targeting, punishment, and TORTURE using radiation weapons and devices.
For the full story, read Vic's articles at http://my.NowPublic.com/scrivener
In the meanwhile, let's not let the censors get away with it. Please post the following to the URL in the headline -- AND TO EVERY POLITICAL BLOG YOU CAN THINK OF!
Let's make freedom of speech VIRAL!
HOW WILL THE DEMS CONFRONT THE ISSUE OF DOMESTIC TORTURE VIA RADIATION WEAPONRY. . .
Now that the Department of Justice has confirmed to New Scientist magazine that local cops are getting 'PAIN BEAM' WEAPONS?
http://newscientist.com/article/dn16339-us-police-coul d-get-pain-beam-weapons.html
Actually, the weapons are already out there, doing grave harm -- as discussed in the first-hand NowPublic.com story by longtime mainstream media journalist Vic Livingston.
Here is a cached link to the version of the expose that was taken down from Politico.com last Friday morning (Jan. 2, 2009):
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:9hH4AVa0XrgJ:www.pol itico.com/news/stories/
< p>(NOTE: Links are not active due to constant apparent sabotage.)1208/16832_Page2.html+domestic+torture+via+radiation+weaponry
Did Politico really take it down "due to inappropriate content," as an email stated (along with more that 20 of Vic's other Politico.com posts!) -- or was this the work of a third-party hacker with an ideological agenda? Maybe someone with the nickname of "Uncle Sam"?
Or was it another chilling possibility: Was Politico pressured to take it down -- along with every other recent post from this writer?
Vic awaits a phone call from Politico.com editor John Harris for the real story... and also to find out why the author can no longer gain access to Politico.com.
FOR THE ORIGINAL STORY, with full comments section:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/domestic-torture-radiat ion-weaponry-americas-horrific-shame
OR (if link mysteriously becomes disabled): My.NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "Domestic Torture..."
Post new comment