though he has sharply criticized the secrecy and the expansive views of executive power advanced by the Bush Justice Department.

turns out to be true and he can act on his beliefs.

No opinion on his criminal justice qualifications....

Notwithstanding long-standing judicial recognition of the common interest privilege, in June 1999, when DOJ formalized its policies for determining whether to prosecute a corporation, it took a position against joint defense agreements between corporations and their employees. Specifically, at that time Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder issued DOJ's first set of guidelines to be considered by federal prosecutors when deciding whether to bring charges against corporations. The Holder Memorandum directed prosecutors to weigh "whether the corporation appears to be protecting its culpable employees ... through the advancing of attorneys fees, through retaining the employees without sanction for their misconduct, or through providing information to the employees about the government's investigation pursuant to a joint defense agreement."[FOOTNOTE 7]

The Holder Memorandum's effort to discourage the use of joint defense agreements merely formalized what was already a widespread practice of federal prosecutors to ask defense lawyers representing corporations whether the company had entered into any joint defense agreements. Whether or not the prosecutor directly expressed disapproval or consternation, the mere inquiry had the effect of sending a message that the joint defense agreement was viewed negatively by the government. It was well understood by the defense bar -- as was ultimately expressed in the wording of the Holder Memorandum -- that the government viewed any effort by corporate counsel to share information or strategy with counsel for company employees as evidence that the "corporation appears to be protecting culpable employees. ... "

In character with Columbia Law grads, Holder represented Chiquita Brands when it came to light that Chiquita was paying money to death squads in Colombia -- death squads the State Department had declared terrorist organizations. Holder managed to work out a settlement with Bush's "Justice" Department whereby Chiquita pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $25 million.  Not a bad result for his client considering that it had been funneling money to terrorist organizations.

Eric H. Holder Jr., Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, asserted in a speech to the American Constitution Society (ACS) that the United States must reverse "the disastrous course" set by the Bush administration in the struggle against terrorism by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, declaring without qualification that the U.S. does not torture people, ending the practice of transferring individuals involuntarily to countries that engage in torture and ceasing warrantless domestic surveillance.

"Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the `War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe," Holder told a packed room at the ACS 2008 Convention on Friday evening. "For the sake of our safety and security, and because it is the right thing to do, the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights."

    As an old Progressive Republican who after Name and Watergate worked as an appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations-before the era after 1983 of divisive politics-I have been a strong supporter of President-elect Obama.  However, I oppose the appointment of Mr. Eric Holder for two main reasons:

    First, Mr. Eric Holder as part of DOJ has a record which subscribes to the collusion of DOJ with the Judicial Branch in violation of the rights of citizens, and the mandate of separation of power.

    During the past 32 years that I have conducted federal civil rights litigation on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics1-Mr. Eric Holder was in DOJ and as a Beltway attorney worked with the Judicial Branch to make the government less accountable.  Thus, if he is appointed and gets Senate approval, the policy of DOJ will be to permit less and less right and ability of citizens  to control abuse of government and its employees.  The evidence confirms during the past 32 years that Courts, DOJ and the Bar have made it almost impossible to make the government accountable  by use of both Civil Rights and Watergate legislation. Query--Who can now afford to sue the government for malfeasance, even if one could find a lawyer willing and able to do so?  This is no accident.  Also, the Bush Administration's disregard for the Rule of Law was no anomaly, but in fact consistent with past DOJ policies under Mr. Eric Holder.

    To understand the magnitude of the problem that the citizens are confronted with by DOJ's policy of the violation of separation of power by collusion with the Courts,2 I suggest for your reading, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House,* and a recent article, "How to Save the Courts" by Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, Parade Magazine, February 24, 2008.

    Second, Mr. Eric Hoder is a defendant in a civil RICO action for violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1204, and 1513.

    The evidence confirms that in his capacity as a Beltway attorney and lobbyist he has been the linchpin in a criminal conspiracy by government employees to deprive my Son of his civil rights as a U.S. citizen, obstruct my rights as a parent, and injure, stigmatize, and deprive me of my right as an independent civil litigation attorney in retaliation for my for petitioning Congress, litigating to enforce my federal statutory rights as a parent to compel DOJ to comply with their duty under the Hague Convention on Missing and Abducted Children and Virginia's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act VA Code § 20-124.1 et seq., See, and for my past 30-year federal civil litigation against the unauthorized polices and practices of DOJ and the Federal Courts in violation of resident and nonresident Hispanics.

    In furtherance of the conspiracy Mr. Eric Holder  did file a fraudulent bar complaint with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board ("VSBDB"), complaining of my litigating to enforce federal rights.  However, his actions were in violation of Federal criminal law. Also, it uncovered evidence that the Supreme Court of Virginia usurped the mandate of separation of power and the authority granted only to the General Assembly under the Constitution of Virginia to crate courts-of-record.  Thus, the evidence is that the VSBDB is without judicial authority or jurisdiction to revoke any attorneys license, and its order as to me is void as issued by a kangaroo court.3 see Petition for Impeachment of members of Supreme Court of Virginia et al., dated June 2007, http://www.petitiononline.com/RDL/petition.html, and see also.

    However, because of the far reaching political implications of holding Mr. Eric Holder et al. Accountable for their criminal acts, the Federal Courts since 2007 have "stonewalled" by denying demands for a RICO jury trial, refused to comply with the Void Order Doctrine, denied access to an impartial court to compel DOJ protect me as a victim pursuant to the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), and denied me of the right to sue for damages under RICO for malfeasance based on holding absolute Judicial and Executive immunity from tortious and criminal liability and lack of venue in D.C. to challenge the criminal acts initiated there by Mr. Eric Holder,  Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor in Chief, Legal Times, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-411, filed on September 28, 2008.   See In re Isidoro Rodriguez, Petition for Writ of Mandamus, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-339, September 15, 2008, to compel the federal courts to comply with the 18 U.S.C. § 3771; and  Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. Chief Justice , Supreme Court of Virginia, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US S Ct. Docket No. 08-574, field October 30, 2008.

    Consequently, to prevent a blot the fledgling Obama/Biden Administration I oppose any hasty appointment Mr. Eric Holder before requiring an investigation of the evidence of malfeasance and my allegations.

    At this critical time when the to restore integrity and public confidence in DOJ., we as citizens to protect our rights under this Republic must comply the complying with the word proclaimed on the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department Building in, "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"

Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
Law Offices of Isidoro Rodriguez
Mobil: 703.470.1457 Email: isidoror@earthlink.net
Web:  http://www.4jobs.com/1114836
Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com

1After I argued and won a Federal Tort Claim Act action, Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed that I was the only know active U.S. license federal litigation sole practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics, i.e. I have: (i) represented 360 nonresident Hispanic women in Class action Breast Implant Cases; (ii) litigated to stop the seizing of all nonresident Hispanic surnamed accounts in the United States as violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Right to Financial Privacy Act,  Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997); and, (iii) litigated against the issuance of the Constitutional prohibited bill of attainders against nonresident Hispanics.

2In a review of The Fraternity, Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret), stated regarded the violation of separation of power by the Judicial Branch that"...it is very clear...that 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....treads on almost sacred ground when he gives his readers the real insight into how 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..." (Emphasis added).