1 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGINIA

RECORD NO. 11O156
JANICE WOLK GRENADIER PETITIONER APPELLANT

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

V.
ILONA ELY FREEDMAN GRENADIER HECKMAN, GRENADIER INVESTMENT CO., LTD., Counsel: Bernard J. DiMuro (VSB No. 18784) Hillary J. Collyer (VSB No. 50952) DiMuroGinsberg, P.C. 908 King Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 703-684-4333 bdimuro@dimuro.com and David M. Grenadier
Page 1 {PLEADING TITLE} Document Author Address City, State, Zip Phone

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Counsel: Michael J. Weiser (VSB No 17630) 510 King Street, Suite 416 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 703-836-7003 mjwesq@erols.com

RESPONDENTS APPELLEES

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Petitioner wants to point out to the Supreme Court members by being limited with words Petitioner is going to be very direct - that the Truth in Black and White is very ugly. The Supreme Court of Virginia by Dismissing Petitioners Appeal - Petition for a Fair Trial by a Judge Chosen as the rules are written under 17.1-105(B) That Petitioner kept to her rights under the law not pointing out the unprofessional and bad behavior of Respondents, Attorneys, Judges, the Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission ( JIRC ) and the Virginia State Bar (VSB). That Petitioner now finds herself in a situation where some of the unprofessional behavior needs to be pointed out. Petitioner prays The Supreme Court of Virginia looks closely at the file, the pleadings, the evidence, not who they like, who pays dues with the VSB, which Judges are involved - but looks at the facts and the Law.
Page 2 {PLEADING TITLE} Document Author Address City, State, Zip Phone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

By denying Petitioners Appeal for Fair Hearings and Trial The Supreme Court of Virginia has violated The State of Virginias Constitution, The Civil rights of the Petitioner, The Rights of the Petitioner under The United States Constitution, and under the laws of The Supreme Court Of Virginia.

Petitioner in Oral Argument pointed out to the Virginia Supreme Court that it was this Court that needed to Draw the line to protect the Public from decisions made behind close doors, by improperly hand selected Judges. That it is the Judges responsibility to know the law and follow the law. The following is the message The Supreme Court of Virginia sends by not Granting Petitioners appeal: 1. It is ok Ilona Grenadier an attorney with the State of Virginia to lie in court, to file false Statements with the Courts. To say to Petitioner that We had nothing do to with your children because you raised them Catholic Ilona Grenadier is Jewish, to be involved in the Mis-Management of the Sonia Grenadier Trust to over $95,000.00 and to benefit millions of dollars in Real Estate from the money mis-managed the courts are protecting her from answering questions, But, Ilona Grenadier was allowed to ask Petitioner questions about the Trust in court. That the VSB supports Ilona Grenadiers behavior as she buys tables at events the VSB holds, her attorney was a past president of the VSB. That Edward Davis turned the situation around and wrote Just because Petitioner didnt like the way Respondent did things
Page 3 {PLEADING TITLE} Document Author Address City, State, Zip Phone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Page 4

didnt make them illegal Edward Davis tried to turn it around Petitioner was involved in stealing the money. Edward Davis wouldnt look at the Truth or speak with Petitioner. Petitioner from the actions of the VSB believes they find it appropriate behavior for Ilona Grenadier to lie, file false papers, mismanage the Trust of Sonia Grenadier, withhold a Note that she held for Petitioner VSB is fine with that. The message then is We the Virginia Supreme Court support the behavior of an attorneys even when it is illegal. 2. That it is ok for David Mark Grenadier to lie in court and the Judge ignore it because he is the son of the late Judge Albert Grenadier. We the Supreme Court Of Virginia agree you should be given special privileges because of who you know or who your related to. 3. It is ok for the Alexandria Circuit Court to Recluse themselves not follow the rules of the Supreme Court and choose their friends that will rule in favor of Ilona Grenadier who they love and the past wife of the late Judge Albert Grenadier their friend. Bring in Judges that Respondent has done favors for, to be sure they rule in her favor. For the Judges to be disingenuous in court, for the Judges to have Discussions about the case with each other to decide what will be allowed in the Court Room and what wont be allowed by the Petitioner . That the Petitioner will not have the Opportunity to a Judge chosen at arms
{PLEADING TITLE} Document Author Address City, State, Zip Phone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Page 5

length by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia which is the Law in Virginia. For the head Judge of the Circuit Court of Virginia to Petitioners face tell her she wouldnt get a Fair Trial. The Virginia Supreme Court has sent the message to the Alexandria Circuit Court that it is ok you dont know the rules and you dont follow the rules. That you choose who will get a fair trial and who wont - We the Virginia Supreme Court Support you.

4. That Petitioner who is Pro se with Sole custody of 2 girls and child support for the last years of $375.00, who couldnt afford an attorney has no rights. That in Virginia if you dont have an attorney the Judges and the Respondents who are attorneys or related to the Right people, will be given special treatment. That this case was a simple Real Estate Partnership That the Judges never looked at the Evidence or the Facts. That all rulings were on who was the person they liked and wanted to see win. That Petitioner Pro se made it very clear in filings that she wanted a fair Judge, including filing a Motion for a Trial by Jury. That by all appearance and from what the Petitioner was told by the Alexandria Circuit Court it was deliberately disingenuous with Petitioner. If the Supreme Court of Virginia looks at the facts they will see the Circuit Court of Alexandria deliberately denied Petitioner a Fair Trial under the laws of the Virginia Supreme Court rule 17.1-105(B). That even on October 13, 2011 Judge Dawkins was disingenuous when he said he wasnt a Judge at the time this case was heard. That the letter on August 12, 2010 Judge Kloch
{PLEADING TITLE} Document Author Address City, State, Zip Phone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Page 6

reverses his Order of August 11, 2010 and writes I am so situated as to have rendered it improper for me to have heard the motion for default judgment filed by Ms. Grenadier (Petitioner). Further, I believe strongly that the appearance of Justice is equally important as justice itself You will notice in the letter he points out that he is working with Judge McGrath but, from what the Petitioner can tell and what she understands he had retired and was working with Judge McGrath when the Alexandria Circuit Court chose Judge McGrath as the Trial Judge. The message sent to Petitioner from the Supreme Court of Virginia is - You have NO RIGHTS under the laws of Virginia as you are of the wrong religion, not one of us, the x-wife of a son of one of us. Which was pointed out to Petitioner by the State of Virginia when she went to talk with her State Representative. Donald Curry with the JIRC Commission was very supportive of the unprofessional, dishonest bad behavior of the Judges.

I pray that you will take into consideration the unprofessional and bad behavior of the Respondents, the Judges, the Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission, the Virginia State Bar and instead of sending the message that in Virginia you have to be the right race, related to the right people, be of the right religion, we have to like you. That you send the message that we support The Virginia Constitution, the Constitution of America, The Civil Rights of individuals, and more importantly we uphold the Rules of The Virginia Supreme Court. If you dismiss by Appeal you will be sending a very clear message to the World. The United States of
{PLEADING TITLE} Document Author Address City, State, Zip Phone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Page 7

America will brag about its fairness its great legal system but, only will you get a fair trial in Virginia if we like you, you are born into the right family, you are the right race, you have a religious belief that we agree with. The rule of law 17.1-105(b) was clearly violated by the Circuit Court of Alexandria They told the Petitioner the complete opposite of the law on several different occasions. The Virginia Judicial web site reads The components necessary to discharge this function are a court system unified in its structure and administration, competent, honest judges and court personnel, and uniform rules of practice and procedure If the Supreme Court is going to look at this appeal Under those words it will see we have a situation where the judges were dishonest, a structure that has failed. By denying my appeal the Supreme Court sends the message that it finds not following the Law of the Supreme Court acceptable. In the Beginning of this Petitioner pointed out this was going to be direct and ugly -it wasnt going to be pretty the Truth is ugly, but, The Supreme Court of Virginias job is to look at the Truth and to uphold the Law. I pray you reconsider the facts and Grant me a Trial with a Judge appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Which is what should have happened in September of 2007.

"Each time someone stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope." - Robert F. Kennedy
{PLEADING TITLE} Document Author Address City, State, Zip Phone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Page 8 {PLEADING TITLE} Document Author Address City, State, Zip Phone

June 27, 2011 Janice Wolk Grenadier Pro se Petitioner Appellant 15 West Spring Street Alexandria, Virginia 22301 jwolkgrenadier@aol.com

Certificate of Service In Accordance with the Rule 5:20 & 5:20 A - Petitioner Certifies that a True and Accurate copy was e-mailed to The Supreme Court of Virginia at scvpfr@courts.state.va.us and at the same time Emailed to Counsel for Respondents: David Mark Grenadier to Michael J. Weiser at mjwesq@erols.com and to Ilona Grenadier and Grenadier Investment Co. Ltd. To bdimuro@dimuro.com Date June 27, 2011 Janice Wolk Grenadier jwolkgrenadier@aol.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Page 9

{PLEADING TITLE}

Document Author Address City, State, Zip Phone