The Victims Judge Albert Grenadier his mother, his family

Janice Wolk Grenadier and her girls These are the pictures of the lives you have ruined - for the GREED of Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman Ericka Freedman Lewis & Jerome Heckman who Judge Albert Grenadier if he hadnt gotten sick would have left Ilona according to Henry Thomas He found her in the end to be nothing but a BITCH as Henry confided in me And these are the pictures of the people you proclaim to LOVE Ilona, Jerry, Ericka her daughter walk away with Millions

Affidavit of Janice Wolk Grenadier of the Old Boy Network - Actions by the following People
The Victims The Laws Broken Old Boy Network Other Cases these Judges have ruled in Favoritism and Cronyism instead of the Laws and the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Virginia Constitution

Index 1. Victims 2. The Laws Broken 3. Case Law 4. The Criminals 5. Supreme Court Judges 6. Federal Judge 7. Circuit Court Judges 8. General District Judge 9. City of Alexandria Court Administrator 10. Supreme Court of Virginia Clerk
2

11. JIRC 12. Lawyer 13. City of Alexandria Attorneys 14. City of Alexandria Commonwealth Attorney 15. City of Alexandria Clerk of Court 16. Virginia State Bar 17. Virginia State Legislators 18. Other Virginia Cases that show the collusion is not just JWG by the Judges that the collusion to prevent the TRUTH in their court rooms includes threats of bodily harm. 19. Conclusion 20. Links to articles on the Fact that Virginia is rated 47th & 49th in Corruption Article how the Daily Beast rated Virginia second most Corrupt State http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/region_survey _finds_virginia_second_most_corrupt_state987/ How State Integrety Gave them an F - 47th most corrupt States http://www.stateintegrity.org/virginia

Victims
1. Judge Albert Grenadier RIP - Died married to Ilona Ely Freedman
Grenadier - March 1988 - by the end of that year - Ilona was married to his 1st cousin Founding partner Lawyer of Keller Heckman - Albert called Jerry the weasel. Ilona / her law firm started either before but right after he died stealing from the Sonia Grenadier Trust.The money that was his families - to take care of his mother. For her and Jerry's benefit in the millions in Real Estate -According to Henry Thomas prior to his passing he regretted -his marriage to Ilona. Due to Albert's bad taste and bad judgment - He's entire family has suffered greatly at the hands of Ilona. His Sister, Her children, His grandchildren have all been targets of Ilona.

2. Sonia Grenadier - Wife to Herman Grenadier, Mother to Albert and Ruth, 9

grandchildren, 5 great grandchildren - the Victim of Ilona Grenadier stealing Herman out of his resting place at King David, Ilona and her law firm through a forged Addendum to her Trust stealing from her for years. No real accounting was ever done because only Ilona knows how much she really was able to steal and no one has held her accountable. The judicial system is protecting her.

3. The Sister of Albert (Ruth) - a victim of Ilona and her law firm. Taking
advantage of her and lying, stealing from her and now her family receiving notice that they must move her from her resting place as Ilona considers her a stranger in her garden at King David. Ilona waited 3 years till after the family could no longer ask to see her files. Ilona filed a false report with the State of Virginia to only have it covered up. Ilonas actions were and are willful acts with malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, and grossly reckless. Ilona;s actions are egregious, a fraudulent scheme to steal as much as she could since the illness of the late Judge Albert Grenadier.in or around 1983.

4. Sonias 9 Grandchildren - Will never benefit from the hard work of Herman
& Sonia due to the theft of Ilona and her law office of the Trust and who knows what else.

5. Sonias 5 Great Grandchildren - Were left with nothing and worse due to the theft of Ilona and her law firm. 6. Janice Wolk Grenadier and her 2 girls Due to Ilona Ely Freedman
Grenadier Heckman and David Grenadier has had her life ruined. The evil actions of these two have been actions that were and are willful acts with malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, and grossly reckless. Ilona;s actions are egregious, a fraudulent scheme to steal as much as they could since the introduction to them in March of 1988. On or around May 8, 2008 After Court - Ilona explains the following to Janice - Ilona Grenadier again brags about her relationship with the Judges - That she has in the past & continues to give Free legal advice to Judge Brown. - Ilona Grenadier explains to JWG why no one has anything do to with JWGs children is because JWG raised them Catholic. In 20 years she has seen the girls once by her choice. - That JWG should be grateful to her for the listing on Holland Road. - That Ilona doesnt believe David Stole the money from the Sonia Grenadiers Trust -which only left Ilona and her law firm to steal over $95,000.00 to put towards Real Estate valued at over 10 Million today.
4

November December of 2013 - The Judges ( not sure which ones ) in collusion with Ilona from Baltimore, Md in collusion to find JWG incompetent devised the following scheme From the Opposition of Judge Clarks Statement of Facts that he did not allow to be made a part of the record - Judge Clark leaves out also what has recently come to the Plaintiffs attention the Collusion between Judges and Defendant Ilona Grenadier that they were looking for information on Plaintiff to declare her incompetent to file any further information. A gentlemen as a favor to Defendant Ilona was to drug Plaintiff getting sexual and inappropriate naked pictures of Plaintiff or to plant drugs in Plaintiffs home & on her girls, or to hurt Plaintiffs girls.(Plaintiff chooses not to expose what was to happen to Plaintiffs girls in this Opposition) Plaintiff has reported to the police who in collusion with Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel to charge Plaintiff with Extortion with no report number or incident number, informed Plaintiff she should just ignore it. Plaintiff chooses not to ignore and has the evidence in the way of e-mails and tape of conversation.

The Laws and Rules A Judge is a trespasser of the law, if he did not have jurisdiction and his
order are VOID, of no legal force or effect. Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason. Appellant has not had a Judge with Jurisdiction since the beginning of Case in September of 2007. Appellant has not had her day in court. When there is no due process there is no statute of limitations. The following are the Laws & Rules that have been ignored by Ilona her lawyers law firm - Judges - et al: 1. The Supreme Court of Virginia is guilty of Breach of Contract Appellant has now twice paid for Serves that she has not received 2. The Circuit Court of Alexandria is in Breach of Contract for the lies Pendens and the services Appellant has not received since September of 2007 serves she has paid for
5

3. United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment is very clear you can't deprive people of their life and liberty without due process. et al 4. Virginia Constitution - Due Process et al 5. Abuse under the Color of the Law 6. The actions of The Old Boy Network have been willful acts that are ongoing and were/are malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless 7. Kangaroo Court 8. Involvement of Retribution towards Janice and her daughters 9. Retaliatory Actions 10. Retribution Actions 11. Bribery 12. Treason 13. Conspiracy 14. Collusion 15. Willful misconduct 16. Perjury 17. Willful blindness 18. Honest services fraud 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Extortion; Harassment Gang activity Racketeering Misconduct while in office for personal gain Decisions made in bad faith for a corrupt purpose, Deliberately and intentionally failing to follow the law; Extrinsic fraud; Egregious legal errors; Violation of Constitutional rights per 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983 Ex parte communications Obstruction of Justice Fraud on the Court Liability Government Liability Miscarriage of Justice
6

35. Appearance of Justice 36. Arbitrary and Capricious 37. Breach of Fiduciary Duties 38. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied 39. Willful and malicious injury 40. Willful Deliberate and Premeditated 41. Conflicts of Interest related to the Practice of Law 42. Conflict of Interest Recusal 43. Appearance of Justice 44. Guilty of Collusion & Conspiracy 45. VSB Duties of an Officer of the Court 46. The Federal Torts claim Act of FTCA 47. Title 3 USC 3331 Oath of office 48. Title 5 USC 2902 -2906 49. Title 5 USC 556 557 The Administrative Procedure Act 50. 18 USC 1341 -Frauds and swindles 51. Supreme Court Rule 17.1-105 (b) 52. 18 USC 912 Intent to Defraud 53. 18.2- 481 Treason 54. 18.2 21 When and where accessories tried; how indicted. 55. Title 18 USC 241 Conspiracy Against Rights 56. Title 18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law 57. Title 18 18 U.S.C. 1346 Mail Frauds provides: "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. 58. 18 USC 1341 Mail Frauds and swindles 59. Title 42 USC 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights 60. Va. Code 17.1-123 How orders are recorded and signed 61. Va. Code 17.1 124 Order books 62. Va. Code 17.1-129 Filing date and time to be noted on papers 63. Code 17.1-208* Records, etc. open to inspection; copies; exception 64. Va. Code 17.1-215 Process book 65. Va. Code 17.1-247 When and how clerk to verify his record. 66. Va. Code 17.1-248 Clerk to make index to each of his books
7

67. Va. Code 17.1-249 General indexes for clerks office; daily index 68. Va. Code 17.1-250 Correction of indexes 69. Va. Code 8.01-227 Remedy by motion on certain bonds 70. Va. Code 8.01-271.1 Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions, sanctions 71. Va. Code 192 -2-191 (2) 72. This is a Hate Crime 73. Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. 74. First Amendment and other federal laws including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the discrimination of Appellant and her daughters being Catholic

CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 1. A Judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon2 A Judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the Judges activities. Canon 3. A Judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently. (Part Six, III of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia integrates the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia stated above.) RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Preamble: A Lawyers Responsibilities A lawyer is an officer of the legal system. Rules 1.1 - 1.18: Client-Lawyer Relationship* Rules 3.1 - 3.9: Advocate Rules 4.1 - 4.4: Transactions with Persons other than Clients (Part Six, II of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia integrates the Professional Guidelines and the Rules of Professional Conduct stated above.)
8

Case Law
Our Flag stands for Freedom & Liberty. Our Young Men and Women put their lives on the line for the Freedom & Liberty we boast about - yet the TRUTH is it no longer exists in Virginia. The basic liberty that our Flag stands for and here is where the standard of Liberty is set for the rest of the World. 1. Nixon didnt resign over the crime He resigned over the Cover Up The Criminal Actions of everyone involved will be decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia or any and all other avenues of Appellant. The cost of the actions and these crimes are going to be a burden for the State of Virginia and the City of Alexandria. 2. The Order on JWG signed by Judge Kemler, Judge Dawkins, Judge Clark dated October 12, 2012 denying the Appellant due process under the U.S. Constitution by entering an order to deprive her of any future of legal documents with the Circuit Court of Alexandria. ( Judge Kemler and Judge Dawkins by appearance had recused themselves from this case ( Judge Kemler in September of 2007 and April of 2008 for Judge Dawkins), then in writing on or around October 11, 2010 in an Order to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiff has not had her day in Court! United States Supreme Court. Justice Brennan concurred on the ground that while denying indigents access to the courts for nonpayment of a fee is a denial of due process, it is also a denial of equal protection of the laws, and no distinction can be drawn between divorce suits and other actions. 3. Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985),
9

4. No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. Butz v. Economou, 98 S.Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S.Ct. at 261 (1882) Further it is the obligation of every Judge to honor, abide by, and uphold not only the Constitution and laws of the State, but they are bound by the laws and Constitution of the United States as well. State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law. Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n 35, 96 S. Ct 3037, 49 L Ed. 2d 1067 (1976)

5. Rulings that deny access to pro se litigants such as JWG to filing documents with the Clerk of Courts office. The order is not rational nor would such an Order be allowed if JWG was an attorney or had an attorney. Further, this policy puts JWG before the court on an unequal footing with Plaintiffs opponent, a due process violation. ,Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193 ;Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956);Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936), the court exceeded it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) Plaintiffs opponent has the benefits of being an attorney, the widow of a past Judge that has served with all the Judges that have heard the case, and is now represented by counsel, that was a past President of the Virginia State Bar, and has donated 10% of his estate to the Bar when he passes. Along with the Defendant Ilona & her counsel generously
10

donating to the Judicial fund for Judge Haddocks portrait after Judge Haddock informed Plaintiff in May of 2008 You will never get a fair trial as we LOVE ILONA and then in October of 2011 blocked Plaintiff from going in front of the Grand Jury in the City of Alexandria as he stated I believe you are going to talk about me . He then went on to demand Plaintiff to come back on December 12, 2010 which was postponed to protect his retirement of December 31, 2010. Plaintiff was then blocked in February of 2011 by Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel and Supreme Court appointed Judge Richard Bowen Potter. The right of self-representation in a civil case is a fundamental right under the Constitution. I recognize that this argument is contrary to dicta of this circuit: however, Faretta v. California, (422 U.S. 806) and the history on which that decision is based, is apparent that the fundamental right of selfrepresentation extends to all matters, civil as well as criminal.

6. Plaintiff then went on to remind Judge Clark - When reviewing a pro-se pleading, it is prudent to follow the federal practice of liberally construing the allegations set out in the pleading to determine whether the pleading asserts any valid causes of action. See, e.g. Harrison v. U.S. Postal Services 840 F. 2d 1149, 1152 (4th Cir. 1988). The factual allegations should be viewed in the light most favorable to the pleading party. Davis v. City of Portsmouth, 579 F. Supp. 1205, 1209-10 (E.D. Va. 1983), affd, 742 F .2d 1448 (4th Cir. 1984)

7. The Eleventh Amendment, which was the first Constitutional amendment after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in
11

law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states in federal court. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases state." Writing for a four-Justice dissent in Alden, Justice David Souter said the states surrendered their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution. The dissenting justices read the amendment's text as reflecting a narrow form of sovereign immunity that limited only the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. They concluded that the states are not insulated from suits by individuals by either the Eleventh Amendment in particular or the Constitution in general. "between a state and citizens of another

8. By ignoring the fact JWG had not been served properly by Defendants attorneys, when in past history Judges had admonished JWG that 2 weeks was not proper time notice and held JWG to a higher standard than officers of the court service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court Rules, Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill. 2d 245, 249, 218 N.E. 2d 706, 708 (1953)

9.

JWG was informed this by the x-wife ( Martha Kent ) of Judge Kent for JWGs Senator Patsy Ticer You are no longer one of them. You cant get a fair trial just like me and my family you need to drop this you cant win Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court against discrimination. Which includes being discriminated because the Judges,
12

lawyers, elected officials and government employees have decided you are not a part of their race.

10.

. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial

of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) 11. Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of

the United States, wars against that Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

12.

Ilona & Davids attorneys on September 26, 2012 main

concern was getting the heading in pleadings to read Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier instead of Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman as they presented it to be malicious of Plaintiff to add Heckman to Defendant Ilonas name. All pleadings by Ilonas attorneys use the name Heckman in them - which was filed with the Supreme Court of Virginia on February 10, 2011 by Defendants own attorneys (DiMuro, Collyer & Weiser) they use the name Heckman. This is just one more example of the harassment of pro se JWG. This disingenuous argument by the attorneys was used for Sanctions against Plaintiff. Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed fraud upon the court, the
13

orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. 13. Citation: 93F. 2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937) Any judgment procured by

fraud is null and void. An erroneous judgment may be attacked collaterally. Affirmed 14. The constitutional guarantee of due process of law , found in the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" ( 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government. 15. Supreme Court Rule 17.1-105(B) provides:

If all the judges of any court of record are so situated in respect to any case, civil or criminal, pending in their court as to render it improper, in their opinion, for them to preside at the trial, unless the cause or proceeding is removed, as provided by law, they shall enter the fact of record and the clerk of the court shall at once certify the same to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall designate a judge of some other court of record or a retired judge of any such court to preside at the trial of such case.

14

In September, 2007, Plaintiff was informed that all judges of the Circuit Court recused themselves because of their close relationship with opposing parties and counsel. Nonetheless, as early as December, 2007, the Circuit Court appointed various out of Circuit judges itself to adjudicate the matter, including Judge McGrath to hear the case, instead of following Rule 17.1-105(b). Thus, this Judge lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should have taken responsibility to appoint a judge to hear the case in September, 2007. Plaintiff learned of this in June, 2010 and preserved this point in her July 13, 2010 motion and August 4, 2010 addendum filed before the Circuit Court.

Here, not only has the Rule been violated, but the Circuit Court acted with impropriety and created the appearance of impropriety by having judges who recused themselves (or were required to recuse themselves) because of personal relationships with Defendants select the out of circuit judge, instead of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court making the selection. Even, assuming, for argument, the Judges did not formally recuse themselves, if they were required to recuse themselves, they were not permitted to circumvent the procedures of Rule 17.1-105(b) by selecting an out of Circuit Court judge themselves. This violation is particularly egregious when the interests of a per se party suing an attorney are at stake. That Judge Clark through his actions of recuing himself in the past and being put on notice Plaintiff planned on including him in a suit for his actions in collusion for preventing Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights to Due Process. 16. The court can also take Judicial Notice under the Void order

Judgment law doctrine. All Courts participating in upholding illegal void judgments Spitzberg v Notaro- Judge Gerald Rosenberg void.
15

Based upon, Spitzberg respectfully requests that the Court set aside the Judgment entered on May 28th 2008 or in the alternative, Spitzberg moves this Court for a full evidentiary hearing for the purpose of arriving at a judgment that furthers Justice . Similarly, any other Court or entity insisting to uphold such an illegal order would be in violation of the US Constitution and therefore all officers of the court now involved with prosecuting this void order will be at risk for such censure , and may be subsequently arrested for these violations of law. Since a public servant must serve the law, and it was broken by the public servants in this case, they are acting as trespassers of the law, and 17. JWG asserts unsigned and unverifiable order violated

Protected Interest of Procedur

substantive rights that are protected by due process must be independently determined, apart from the demand for procedural protection itself. Va. Code 17.1-123 How orders are recorded and signed 18. The Circuit Court of Alexandria and the Supreme Court of Virginia

have Breached their Contracts with JWG by not performing the services she paid for when opening, and other filing fees, along with the cost of answering there Frivolous requests.
The Virginia Federal Court in Alexandria recently issued a decision on the first breach rule in a contract dispute case. In Tandberg Inc. v. Advanced Media Design Inc., the defendant was precluded from enforcing the contract against plaintiff because it committed the first material breach by failing to pay invoices. Not only was the defendant prevented from recovering for subsequent breaches by the plaintiff, the Court summarily awarded the plaintiff over $3 Million for its unpaid invoices. The Court noted that the Virginia cases applying the first material breach rule are not entirely uniform. However, the decision recognized the weight of authority supporting application of recent Virginia Supreme Court cases which precluded enforcement of a
16

contract by the contractual party committing the first material breach, even where the parties continued performing under the contract. In order for the "first breach rule" to be applicable, the party must have committed a material breach. What is a material breach? A breach that is so

fundamental to the contract that the failure to perform that obligation defeats an essential purpose of the contract.

19. The facts are supported by the true record, the statutory language is unambiguous and the Court is bound by the plain meaning of that language. Britt Construction, Inc. v. Magazzine Clean, LLC, 271 Va. 58, 62, 623 S.E.2d 886, 888 (2006); Williams v. Commonwealth, 265 Va. 268, 271, 576 S.E.2d 468, 470 (2003). It is established that, on occasion, court officials refuse to perform certain required ministerial acts in obedience to the mandate of legal authority without regard to, or the exercise of, their own judgment, bias, or self-interests. 20. criminal acts reflecting adversely on the honesty, trustworthiness or fitness of lawyer Ilona in other respects. See Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ira Stephen Saul. Where he loses his license. 21. The only retired court official, upon reflection , properly disqualified himself from these and future proceedings with this JWG Judge Kloch. Judge Kloch Manned up and did the appropriate thing apologizing and appropriately stating Appearance of Justice is just as important as Justice itself This particular court official, while aggressively avenging a deputy Sherriff of the City of Alexandria, admitted that he knew, at the time, that he introduced false records into evidence to obtain the death penalty. Evans v. Virginia , 471 U.S. 1025 (1985). He utilized similar tactics while protecting the interests of the Sherriff, the court and the Plaintiffs in these proceedings.

17

These court officials in the City of Alexandria have an admitted and proven history of illegally infringing upon the rights of others in order to achieve their self-interests. This pattern of behavior continues
There was no doubt that Evans killed an Alexandria sheriff's deputy during a 1981 escape attempt. Evans called it an accident. The jury called it murder. Yet the jury didn't know that the prosecution took an illegal turn. During sentencing, Alexandria Commonwealth's Attorney John Kloch argued for death, saying Evans posed a menace to society. To prove it, he used records showing that Evans had seven prior convictions, including assault on a police officer. Based on this, the jury recommended death. But most of those convictions never happened. Documents showed Kloch knew all along. In 1982, Shapiro learned that three of the "convictions'' were actually one, because of computer error. The charge of attacking a police officer had been dropped on appeal. Another charge was not admissible because Evans had not been represented by a lawyer. Thus, only two of the seven "convictions'' were real. "Wilbert's criminal record looked two times as bad as it really was,'' said William H. Wright Jr., former staff attorney for the Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center. "No wonder the jury thought he was a menace.'' Then, Shapiro found a memo from Kloch's assistant - dated two months before trial explaining the flaws. "It was the smoking gun,'' Shapiro said. Shapiro told the attorney general's office and awaited the state's admission of error. He thought Evans' sentence would be dropped to life. It was not until March 28, 1983 - 10 months after Shapiro first called the records bogus that the state admitted error. That same day, then-Gov. Charles Robb signed emergency legislation allowing the state to resentence prisoners. Shapiro challenged the state's right to resentence Evans. Now, in addition to the prosecutor's use of false records, Shapiro accused the state of stalling its admission of error until the new sentencing law took effect. But in September 1983, a judge ruled that there was no willful misconduct by prosecutors or the attorney general's office. In February 1984, a new jury resentenced Evans. This time, Kloch introduced evidence not used in the first trial, including charges - never tried - that Evans killed a man in 1978 during an argument over a card game. Once again, the jury sentenced Evans to death.

22.

The misconduct and failure to act by the court officials described

18

herein is the species of extrinsic fraud which tampers with the judicial

machinery and subverts the integrity of the Court itself. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp v. Watson 413 S.E.2d 630 (1992) 23. A ministerial act is one which a person performs in a given state of

facts and prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority without regard to, or the exercise of, his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done. Richlands Med. Assn, 230 Va. at 386, 337 S.E.2d at 739 (quoting Dovel v. Bertram, 184 Va. 19, 22, 34 S.E.2d 369, 370 (1945)). 24. When the action of a court is a simple refusal to hear and decide

the case; and the Supreme Court of Virginia having denied appeals and Motion for Law used , in order to prevent a defect or failure of justice. Cowan v. Fulton, 64 Va. (23 Gratt.) 579, 584 (1873). This is such a case.

25.

The misconduct and failure to act by the court officials described

herein is the species of extrinsic fraud which tampers with the judicial machinery and subverts the integrity of the Court itself. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp v. Watson 413 S.E.2d 630 (1992)
26. Va. Code 17.1-208 mandates that any records and papers of every circuit court that are maintained by the clerk of the circuit court shall be open to inspection by any person and the clerk shall, when requested, furnish copies thereof. By the Judges keeping JWG records in Judges chambers prior to Two Weeks after the hearing and then fraudulently using the Post office to mail documents back to JWG.

27.

On or around October 12, 2013 Circuit Court Judges Kemler Dawkins Clark committed Mail and Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. 1346 provides:

"scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. JWG defrauded of honest services.
19

the civil context is almost solely attributable to the inclusion of mail and wire fraud as predicate acts. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 500 (1985). The scheme to intimidate and defraud JWG. The fraudulent statements in the Order and sending back evidence entered into evidence on September 26, 2013 was to defraud justice. See 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343.. The collusion to intimidate and illegally use of the Mail to fraudgently send back documents that were required by law on September 26 to become a part of JWG file in the Circuit Court of Alexandrias Clerks office. Use of the mail and wire fraud statutes against businesses, however, is not unlimited. As general rule, a scheme to defraud must involve misrepresentations as to past or presently existing fact. American Dental Assn v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2010) JWG alleges deceptive conduct by the Judges (Kemler Dawkins Clark ) occurred.

28. In Davis v. Sexton, 211 Va. 410, 177 S.E.2d 524 (1970), the Supreme

Court of Virginia held that a judges ruling in direct contravention of a specific statutory provision was not within his discretion.
29. Due Process - The fourteenth amendment provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The due process clause contains guarantees of both "substantive" and "procedural" due process. Substantive due process requires that governmental action have a rational relationship to a legitimate end of government while procedural due process requires that notice and an opportunity to be heard be given to persons whose liberty or property interests will be affected by governmental actions. The court officials refusals to act are violations

of procedural due process. JWG has been deprived of her and her daughters constitutionally protected property interests; through state action; and the procedures utilized for doing so are constitutionally inadequate. JWG has the right to the equal enjoyment of the rules of judicial procedure and the equal treatment there under. In Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to disqualify himself not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the
20

judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case, but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias." One judge properly disqualified himself from these proceedings under these circumstances. The facts in this evidence of deceptive behavior of the court officials, create the probability of bias, warrant investigation and certainly require the disqualification of Judge Kemler Clark Dawkins and others in the Alexandria Court. The extensive violations by the court officials as detailed is evidence of a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only JWG and the Supreme Court of Virginia but also the Federal Courts and the public.

30.

This Court has the

power and authority to correct and prevent a failure of justice caused by not only the court officials failures to act but also caused by the fraud upon the judicial process. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) 31. Va. Code 17.1-208 mandates that any records and papers of every circuit court that are maintained by the clerk of the circuit court shall be open to inspection by any person and the clerk shall, when requested, furnish copies thereof.

32.

Legislature, together

with the Supreme Court of Virginia have established numerous safeguards such as statutes, oaths, rules and other measures to ensure that the record is accurately reflected and free from corruption. Va. Code Title 17.1 relates generally to the Courts of Record while Chapter 2 of the title deals specifically with the Clerk of the Court and the record keeping requirements and procedures of the court.
21

Va. Code 17.1-123 states how orders are recorded and signed, Va. Code 17.1-124 requires the clerk to maintain Order Books, Va. Code 17.1-129 requires the filing date and time to be noted on papers, Va. Code 17.1-215 requires the clerk to maintain a process book, Va. Code 17.1-247 details when and how clerk is to required to verify his record, Va. Code 17.1-248 requires the clerk to make an index to each of his books, Va. Code 17.1-249 requires the clerk to maintain general indexes for the clerks office as well as maintain a daily index of court proceedings, and Va. Code 17.1-250 details the steps required to make corrections of the required indexes.

Rule 5:10(a)(3) states that each exhibit offered in evidence, whether admitted or not, and initialed by the trial judge is part of the record of a proceeding. The violations and the appearance of how JWGs evidence in the hearing was handled after the hearing shows a collusion to prevent JWGs evidence to be properly entered into her files. Under further inspection of JWGs file in the Supreme Court of Virginia it showed it to be in disarray making it difficult for the Justices. In order for Virginias

33.

ex parte pre-trial attachment scheme to be constitutional, it must provide a meaningful post deprivation hearing that fully compensates the individual. In addition, procedural due process should do more than merely provide the opportunity for an injured party to replenish his resources. The post deprivation remedy must convey to the individual the feeling that the state is treating him justly. Parratt v. Taylor 451 U.S. 527 (1981) 34. The procedural steps

in obtaining the post deprivation remedy must be clear to the average citizen - the statutory language clearly places this responsibility on the
22

court: he shall recover his costs, and damages for loss of the use of his property, and there shall be an order for the restoration of the attached effects. The code does not state that JWG must take any action to obtain the remedy. The code does not state JWG must file a separate complaint, file a motion, request a hearing, lodge a counterclaim. lodge a counterclaim. If the statutes are to be interpreted that JWG must take some sort of action, such directive is not clearly stated in the code and such vagueness would render the statutory scheme unconstitutional. JWG has had no opportunity to replenish her resources and JWG absolutely does not feel that the state is treating her justly. To the extent Virginias pre-trial ex parte attachment procedures are Constitutional, the continuing actions of the state officials in obstructing and denying JWG ( by the actions of Judge Clark releasing the Les Pendens) restricts recovery of the costs and damages as due JWG by actions which are secondly and separately unconstitutional deprivations of JWG property and rights. Connecticut v. Doehr 501 U.S. 1 (1991)

35.

The ex parte pre-trial conversations are not constitutional, JWG

should have the clear right to the recovery of costs and damages. The court has an unambiguous ministerial duty to enforce JWGs statutory remedies. 36. The Order of the Supreme Court on March , 2013 denying Appeal and all Motions is is vague and difficult to understand almost nonsensical coinciding with the Complaints on the Judges to the JIRC. 37. There are a number of void orders that were issued during these

proceedings. The orders are void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction, based upon unconstitutional statutes, unconstitutional procedures and extrinsic
23

fraud by officers of the court, and because the court has acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. 38. An order is void ab

initio, rather than merely voidable, if "the character of the judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt." Collins v. Shepherd, 649 S.E.2d 672, 274 Va. 390 (Va., 2007) Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport Comm'n, 255 Va. 69, 73, 495 S.E.2d 825, 828 (1998); Lapidus v. Lapidus, 226 Va. 575, 579, 311 S.E.2d 786, 788 (1984); Watkins v. Watkins, 220 Va. 1051, 1054, 265 S.E.2d 750, 753 (1980); Barnes v. American Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 706, 130 S.E. 902, 906 (1925); Anthony v. Kasey, 83 Va. 338, 340, 5 S.E. 176, 177 (1887) 39. An order that is void

ab initio is a "complete nullity" that may be "impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any manner." Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 52, 541 S.E.2d 549, 551 (2001) 40. All orders in this case are further void ab initio as it violates JWGs due process rights and those rights as established under the Virginia statute 41. A final order is one

"'which disposes of the whole subject, gives all the relief that is contemplated, and leaves nothing to be done by the court'" Daniels v. Truck & Equip. Corp., 205 Va. 579, 139 S.E.2d 31 (1964), Erikson v. Erikson, 19 Va. App. 389, 390, 451 S.E.2d 711, 712 (1994) (quoting Southwest Va. Hosps. v. Lipps, 193 Va. 91, 193, 68 S.E.2d 82, 83-84 (1951)) - This case is far from over and having a final order.
24

42.

The fact that an order

is labeled as final is not dispositive on its finality; the order must, in fact, be final. The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that "despite its title as the `Final Order,' the order entered in this proceeding" was not final since important issues remained unresolved. Estate of Hackler v. Hackler, 44 Va. App. 51, 602 S.E.2d 426 (Va. App., 2004) Commonwealth v. Lancaster, 45 Va. App. 723, 731, 613 S.E.2d 828, 832 (2005) 43. The Question becomes Should JWG be in the Supreme Court of Virginia Do they have jurisdiction over a VOID Order? In order for the Supreme Court of Virginia to have jurisdiction over the initial appeals, the orders from which JWG appealed must have been valid orders. Any order, to the extent one exists, denying JWG the recovery of all of her funds stolen from Ilona an officer of the court along with costs and damages related to the ex parte communications with the Judges the Orders are then unconstitutional and therefore void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 44. Willful and malicious injury means . . . the Judges, without justification or excuse, and with full knowledge of the specific consequences of his conduct, acts notwithstanding, knowing full well that his conduct will cause particularized injury. . . . Kansas ex rel. Stovall v. Zitlow (In re Zitlow), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1871 (Bankr. D. Kan. Jan. 3, 2002) 45. The court officials

have all evolved into adversarial parties in the proceedings and are abusing their authority, to protect their self-interests, which include the Supreme Court of Virginia with their resent actions. JWG has a clear right to the relief requested as mandated in the unambiguous statutes and rules discussed throughout this. The court officials are violating

25

JWGs rights by refusing to perform their ministerial duties as required by these statutes and rules, therefore. Alternatively, if these statutes and rules do not clearly provide JWG the relief requested or if these statutes and rules not require the court officials to perform their ministerial duties, then the statutes and rules are void as they are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Criminals / Appellees Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman Lawyer officer of the
court, represented herself in court till around 2009
1) Ilona was a Defendant in original suit of September of 2007 is a 51% owner of GIC. 2) Ilona is a licensed attorney in Virginia founding law partner of Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffett & Kieser - Ilona & other lawyers in her law firm represented her till April 17, 2009 when Ben DiMuro and other attorneys of DiMuroGinsberg took over as legal counsel for Ilona & her law firm. 3) Ilona Lied in court, lied in Admissions, filed false / fraudulent documents with the court on several occasions - Knowingly 4) Bribed Judges, through donations of Tables, for Portraits, parties, 5) Escrow account interest supports the VSB, hired Ben DiMuro a past President of the VSB to use his influence to have complaints denied. 6) Gave Free Legal advice to Judge Brown who proceeded over case three (3) different times. 7) Bragged about her influence over Judges - JWG the Judges all Loved her 8) Politically supported Clerk of Court Ed Semonian & Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel, Patsy Ticer, Adam Ebbin & David Englin 9) Ilona stated she had nothing to do with JWGs girls because they were raised Catholic and went to Catholic Schools 10) Used her friendships to influence of the Old Boy Network to support her illegal & unprofessional behavior

26

11) Ilona was the wife of the late Judge Albert Grenadier. Circuit Court father to David Grenadier, son of Sonia Grenadier - Died March 1985 12) Ilona and her law firm were involved in the Mismanagement of the Sonia Grenadier Trust. 13) Ilona was involved in the forgery of Sonia Grenadier on an Addendum to the trust making her Trustee, 14) Ilona illegally donated Herman & Sonia Grenadiers Garden at King David, Moving Herman Grenadier without appropriate permission, 15) Ilona was disingenuous with the state and filing a complaint against King David Cemetery for burring strangers in her garden. 16) Waiting over 3 years to send letter and inform her niece and nephew that they would need to remover there mother Ruth ( Died May 20, 2008), Alberts sister from being buried with her Brother, Mother & Father (Sonia & Herman) because Ilona had not given permission and now Ilona calls or considers Ruth, a stranger. 17) Ilona refuses to provide the canceled checks used to purchase the garden or the permission she was given to move Herman, and which accounts the funds came out of to play this game of Ilonas. 18) Ilonas actions have been willful acts were malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, and grossly reckless. 19) Ilona in 1990 represented JWG as her lawyer in the assignment document of her commission for a property called Holland Rd., is owed with interest from a note a value of $ 570,000+ refusing to turn over the Note or the money. The money went to pay back money, Ilona through her law firm had stolen from the Sonia Grenadier Trust. 20) Ilona arrogantly bullied, manipulated the money using scare tactics, false pretense, lies from JWG, the morning after A was born. 21) The documentation of Ilona and her law firms involvement in the forgery of Sonia Grenadier is attached here as Exhibits or in Exhibit 4 - Sonia Grenadier 22) JEROME (Jerry) HECKMAN of Keller Heckman Founding Partner to Keller Heckman, international law firm in Washington DC, 1st Cousin to the late Judge Albert Grenadier married December of 1985 to Ilona Grenadier. Blood Relative to Plaintiffs daughters. His mother sister to Sonia Grenadier whom he has benefitted from the theft of the funds that

27

were stolen from Sonia Grenadier and Maliciously Manipulated from JWG. Part owner of the Monroe Ave Partnership that funds from the Sonia Grenadier Trust went into.

Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman is guilty of : Perjury, Fraud on the Court, Involvement of Forgery, Theft of Herman Grenadier, malpractice, Bribery, Abuse of her Oath of Office, Conspiracy, Collusion, Miscarriage of Justice, preventing Due Process, conflict of interest related to the practice of law, violating code of ethics, has liability to her victims, has violated Janices Religious, Political, United state Constitutional, Vi rginia Constitutional and Civil Rights, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Title 18 US code 241 Conspiracy against rights, and 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law, Retaliatory & Retribution actions, Treason On March 8, 2013 JWG asserts in her Motion for Reconsideration after the Supreme Court Justices and JIRC on the same day throughout complaints on Judges and her appeal for no reason - the following - Appellant asserts in collusion to protect Appellee/Ilona

of Perjury, Fraud on the Court, Involvement of Forgery, Theft of money from the Sonia Grenadier Trust account through her law office for great personal gain over $10 Million in Real Estate, Theft of Herman Grenadier, malpractice, Bribery, Abuse of her Oath of Office, Conspiracy, Collusion, Miscarriage of Justice, preventing Due Process, conflict of interest related to the practice of law, violating code of ethics, has liability to her victims, has violated Appellants Religious, Political, United state Constitutional, Virginia Constitutional and Civil Rights, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Title 18 US code 241 Conspiracy against rights, and 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law, Retaliatory & Retribution actions, Treason, Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, 18 USC 912. With Apelless Intention to 18 USC 1341 -Frauds and swindles, Defraud, Collusion & Conspiracy, Breach of Contract, Arbitrary and Capricious, Committed Fraud on the Court, et al. After reviewing my case with several attorneys - Ilona Greandier owes JWG over $ 4 million dollars, without Punitive and exemplary for the malice and intend to harm JWG and her daughters for personal financial gain.
28

GIC Grenadier Investment Ltd Freedman Heckman & David Mark Grenadier

Formed around 1985 by Ilona Grenadier Ely

1) Janice Wolk Grenadier filed claims in the Circuit Court of Alexandria in September, 2007 against GIC related to 28 East Bellefonte Avenue, Alexandria VA (the Property) owned 50% by Janice and 50% by GIC (which was owned by Ilona and David ). The Defendants failed to pay their fair share of expenses related to the Property. Janice Wolk Grenadier claimed damages of approximately $300,000, including interest compounded at 10%. 2) GIC is today a successful Real Estate Partnership with a value of over 10 million in Real Estate Florida, California, Virginia 3) Money was loaned to David from Janice in the Purchase of 28 East Bellefonte Ave. GIC only putting up % of the purchase. Ilona claimed owning 75% as an officer of the court Fraud on the Court. 4) Money was stolen out of the Sonia Grenadier Trust to purchase the Real Estate. Ilona was involved in the Forged Addendum to the Trust that gave her access to the money. The money was stolen through Ilonas Law Firm. 5) Ilona has gotten away with these crimes thanks to the power she has over the Old Boy Network see more above - Ilona Grenadier

Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffett & Keisler PC -

Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman and all the lawyers in this firm are aware of the Stealing from the Trust and are ignoring the illegal actions of the lawyers in the firm.

David Mark Grenadier 50% ownership of GIC & Step son of Ilona Ely Freedman
Grenadier Heckman, son of the late Judge Albert Grenadier.

Judges Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Virginia has had several chances to make this wrong
against Janice right. Janice Prays this injustice stops here this time.

Supreme Court - Chief Justice The Honorable Cynthia Kinser

Has had 6 occasions to Right all these wrongs instead she misused her power and her actions have been willful acts that have been malicious, violent,
29

oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, and grossly reckless to further the pain and severing of Appellant.

Justice Donald W. Lemons Lied to Appellant at the Courts of Justice in

December of 2011 that the Supreme Court had not ruled on Favoritism and Cronyism but, on the Law Appellant filed a Motion for law used to be disclosed it was denied.

Justices: S. Bernard Goodwyn - LeRoy F. Millette, Jr. - William C. Mims - Elizabeth A. McClanahan - Cleo E. Powell Senior Justices: Charles S. Russell - Elizabeth Lacy - Lawrence Koontz, Jr. Federal Judge Gerald Bruce Lee October 20, 2011
Virginia Complaint-Conspiracy to interfere with the Civil Rights 18 USC 241 & 42 USC 1983 Illegal Actions to Deny Access to Grand Jury. Trial by Jury, & More Emergency Motion for injunctive Relief. With the suggestion of the Clerk JWG files for in forma pauperis, as she cant afford service. JWG files at 3.17 pm and is told she will know no later than 9 am the next day. JWG calls regularly and asks what the issue is. She is told the Judge is just so busy. JWG goes to Clerks office and Clerks cant look her in the eye, a sign they know there is a corrupt issue. 1) October 31, 2011 JWG Letter to Judge Lee RE- application for in forma pauperis 2) November 9, 2011 - Fed Court Order Deny Request for in forma pauperis due to claim is Frivolous 3) November 23, 2011 JWG Files with Fed Court Petition for Reconsideration of the Frivolous Order of 9 November 2011 Complaint-Conspiracy to Interfere with the Civil Rights 18 USC 241 & 42 ISC 1983 Illegal Actions to Deny Access to Grand Jury Trial By Jury 4) December 20, 2011 Ms. Slaughter Federal Judge Bruce Lees Secretary lies to Plaintiff JWG files in the Eastern District Court of

30

5) December 21,2011 File Motion to be heard in Federal Court January 6, 2012 denied as Judge Lee is out of town? They will not reschedule for a date that is within the time frame of notification of suit to Defendants 6) January 13, 2012 - File Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions on Alexandria Attorney Sengel. Jury Trial Demanded 7) January 18, 2012 Order from Judge Gerald Bruce Lee - Judge Lee is disingenuous and Claims Plaintiffs Complaint is frivolous. That the Complaint rests on a fantastic and fanciful factual basis, including the following allegations - see attached Order 8) Order that was done on the 13th of January 2012 and mailed on the 18th of January 2012. In which JWG is called Delusional, malicious & looking for frivolous law suits being fantastic and fanciful nature. But, Judge Gerald Bruce Lee has met all the other Judges. Government employees used his staff to lie to JWG and mislead JWG in information about the Federal court rules. By all appearance has conflict of interest in all parts of JWGs case and should have recused himself. Because of this Gerald Bruce Lee has lost judicial immunity. Conflict of interest and his being part of the Network can be easily proven Judge Lee was an active member of the Virginia State Bar. He was an elected member of the Virginia State Bar Council, Chairman of the General Practice of Law Section, President of the Northern Virginia Black Attorneys Association, and Chairman of the Judicial Selection Committee of the Alexandria Bar Association. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judge Lee breached his oath of office, has taken personal, professional relationships into consideration before his oath, the Law and Plaintiffs Civil & United States C onstitutional Rights. Used personnel support staff to be disingenuous in several issues to protect him. He has abused his authority, which is a federal crime for Color of Law Abuses. 9) January 24, 2012 JWG letter to Judge Lee, giving him the opportunity to recuse himself. 10) Judges who have acted in their judicial capacity were entitled to immunity. Judges who act outside of their judicial capacity are not entitled to immunity. In this case he and all the Judges from September 7, 2007 who have ruled on my case are in violation of many different laws which you lose immunity. Under the common law, judges are generally immune from civil liability for judicial acts, but they do not enjoy this immunity when there is criminal liability. Judges are not protected by immunity when they have acted in "the clear absence of all jurisdictions." In this case Judge Lee and all the Judges from this date have acted with Malice and Clear intent to follow the wants of
31

Judge Haddock the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Alexandria who to my face told me I would not get a fair trial and how they Loved Ilona. 11) Judge Lees actions in having his staff be disingenuous and taking longer then normal to approve an admistartive type approval of in forma pruperis. Acting with impropriety created the appearance of supporting the malicious, illegal, unprofessional behavior of the Virginia Circuit Court of Alexandria, and supporting the wishes of Judge Haddock, Judge Klock and Judge Bondareff Kemler, Judge Dawkins, Judge Clark, Randy Sengel Commonwealths Attorney. Which the Judges had previously recused themselves? That are Judges you have a personal relationship with. 12) Judge Lee had jurisdiction but lost immunity Judge Lee is a trespasser of the law. Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason. 13) Judge Lee has lost his immunity. Judge Lee as a judge did not follow the law, i.e. ,he is a trespasser of the law, you as a judge have lost subject-matter jurisdiction and your orders should be void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." Judge Lee conspired with the other defendants to keep his standing in the Old Boy Network..

Circuit Court Judges Donald Kent - his best friend Chief Judge Haddock (according to the City
of Alexandria Bar article) said to my face You will never get a Fair trial we LOVE ILONA and he proceeded to compromise the State of Virginia, the State of Virginias Legal System. The question becomes what was his involvement with JWG being set up with Martha Kent his X-wife by Patsy Ticer and her telling JWG - She understood what I was going through- she had walked in my shoes She and her family
32

could not get a fair trial either Her niece had an issue as well as she had - she was the x-wife of a Judge Judge Kent That I could not win That I was no longer one of them I had no rights in the State of Virginia. Donald Curry of JIRC took Donald Kents Place from articles on line. From what I can tell Judge Donald Kent was the Chief Judge when the late Judge Albert Grenadier was a Circuit Court Judge in till 1985 when he passed.

Chief Judge Donald Haddock -

On or about May 7, 2008 informed JWG she could not get a fair trial as they all Loved Ilona and that is why they were bringing in other Judges. Has committed Fraud upon the Court, Violated his oath of office, You will never get a Fair trial we LOVE Ilona The appearance of impropriety to this situation is an understatement his ethics are deemed questionable. To a pro se litigant, without knowledge of the specific facts, the comment and action in question appears inappropriate and was a violation of rules and regulation. This is not the first time by appearance Judge Haddock has taken care of his friends. Denied JWG right to go in front of the Grand Jury on October 13, 2011. Told JWG I was going to let you go into the Grand Jury but, I have decided not to because I believe you are going to talk about ME. I demand you back on December 12, 2012 to go in front of the Grand Jury which was delayed and denied on February 13, 2012 is guilty of the following crimes: Abuse under the Color of the Law, Involvement of Retribution towards Plaintiff Retaliatory Actions, The appearance of Bribery by DiMuroGinsburg & Greandier, Anderson Starace, Duffett & Kiesler, Treason, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, Conflicts of Interest, Conflict of Interest Recusal, Appearance of Justice, Guilty of Collusion & Conspiracy, VSB Duties of an Officer of the Court, Supreme Court Rule 17.1-105 (b), 18.2-481 Treason, 18.2 21, Title 18 United States code 241, Title 18 United States code 242, Title 42 United States code 1983, Cannons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia Chief Judge Haddock actions illegal & unprofessional are in conflict with the following Cannons et al from list above What was his motivation His LOVE for ILONA

Lisa Kemler By all appearance she recused herself in September of 2007 without filing
the appropriate paper work with the Supreme Court of Virginia. On October 11, 2011 she signed an Order recuing herself from overseeing the Grand Jury on December 12, 2011 as demanded by then Chief Judge Donald M. Haddock and denied on February 13, 2012 by Randy Sengel and Judge Bowen Potter (appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia). The Circuit Court of Alexandria per the Supreme Court did
33

not follow the appropriate and customary procedure on filing the appropriate paper work in a timely manner and with the appropriate people. September of 2012 Chief Judge Lisa B. Kemler showed her collusion to protect the other Judges, by not having Judge Clark to the appropriate thing and recuse himself. On October 11, 2012 JWG delivered to Judges Chambers Lisa Kemler a letter requesting a Special Grand Jury to look into why her documents were not in JWGs file in the Circuit Court of Alexandrias Clerks office in collusion to intimidate JWG the following action occurred: On October 12, 2012 in collusion with Judge Nolan Dawkins, Judge James C. Clark & herself mailing back documents that had been submitted into evidence and by all appearance involved in the collusion to do whatever harm can be done to Appellant. Chief Judge Lisa Kemler by all appearance has no integrity, has violated the oath of her office and the Judicial Cannons. In September of 2007 by all appearance and per Diane Fiske she had recused herself, and even put it in writing in December of 2012, only to sign and Order taking away Janice Wolk Grenadiers basics rights as a citizen on December 12th of 2012 On October 13, 2012 in the Mail Plaintiff received a Box which has not been opened from the Circuit Court of Alexandria with the evidence that was submitted into the record on September 26, 2012. If the Judge had not submitted or had not taken away all of Plaintiffs right to file anything without his permission, along with the Order to quash the Lis Pendens even when Plaintiff had shown the Financial money with back up due to Plaintiff close to $4 million dollars with interest. By all appearance the Circuit Court of Alexandria has become a Trustee to the money owed Appellant by blocking Appellant taking way her Constitutional Right to protect her interests in a Les Pendens from Corrupt attorneys.

John Kloch
1. September 12, 2007 Ilona Grenadier lies to Judge Kloch in The Alexandria Circuit Court 2. September 22, 2007 Diane Friske Court Administrator informs JWG that all Judges of the Circuit Court of Alexandria had recused themselves. JWG, learned June of 2010 the actions of the Judges were illegal. That the Judges had not followed the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. 3. Judge Kloch retires June of 2008 and is replaced by Judge Nolan Dawkins 4. Judge Kloch goes to work with Juridical Solutions
34

5. May 13, 2008 Diane Friske sends letter that Judge John J. McGrath will be proceeding over the trial. 6. Judge McGrath & Judge Kloch are in a business relationship at this time with Juridical Solutions. 7. July 13, 2010 JWG files a Praecipe for a Motion for Default to be heard by a Judge with Jurisdiction. 8. August 11, 2010 Motion heard by Judge Kloch who had by all appearance recused himself in September of 2007. Order denying Motion for Default to be heard by a Judge with Jurisdiction signed by Judge John Kloch 9. August 12, 2010 Order by Judge Kloch rescind and render Order of August 11, 2012 10. August 12, 2012 Letter from Judge Kloch recusing himself and stated

Appearance of Justice is just as important as Justice itself

Thomas Fortkort December 5, 2007 heard Motion for Default against Ilona/David/GIC this motion was scheduled to be heard in October of 2007. He should have known the rules of the Supreme Court and realized when he was asked to come and hear the case that it should have been through the Supreme Court ~ Not the City of Alexandria Judges. In collusion with the City of Alexandria Judges Denied Plaintiffs Motion for Default ~ Said it was ok that Ilona a lawyer and LOVE of Chief Judge Donald M Haddock to have lied in Court to Judge Kloch.

J. Howe Brown - Three (3) occasions Judge Brown asked by the Circuit Court of Alexandria
to oversee a case that the Judges of the Circuit Court had recused themselves. The Circuit Court of Alexandria had not followed the rules of The Supreme Court of Virginia Rule 17.1-105(b) This was in violation of Plaintiffs Civil Rights, Constitutional Rights, The Law of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Virginia Code, as a Judge he should have the responsibility of knowing. In conclusion he either did not know the law incompetence, or, he ignored the law unconscionable! Judge Browns

actions Violated the Rule 17.1-105(b), his abusive of his authority, was acting under color of law willfully to deprive and conspire to deprive JWG of her rights protected by the Constitution or US law. His impropriety created the appearance of supporting the illegal and unprofessional behavior of the Virginia Circuit Court of Alexandria, other defendants, Ilona, David and supporting the wishes of Judge Haddock, Judge Klock, Judge Dawkins and Judge
35

Bondareff Kemler who had recused themselves and not filed the appropriate paper work with the Supreme Court of Virginia. He is a trespasser of the law, he did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and his order is void, of no legal force or effect. Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason. Judge Brown is guilty of the following Crimes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Color of the law Abuses Taking Fee legal advice from Ilona and not disclosing it 18.2-481 Treason 17.1-105 (b) 18.2 21

James J. McGrath September 11, 2008 Kangaroo Court

His actions to protect the Old Boy Network on this day towards Janice were evil - they were willful acts with malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, and grossly reckless. Judge McGraths actions are egregious, a were fraudulent scheme to product a lawyer that has no integrity. Judge McGrath is guilty of the following Crimes: 1. Color of the law Abuses 2. Not disclosing his working relationship with Judge Kloch who in August of 2010 recused himself a 2nd time for working with Judge McGrath 3. 18.2-481 Treason 4. 17.1-105 (b) 5. 18.2 21

Nolan Dawkins was disingenuous in court willfully in collusion with the other
players in this game to hurt Janice and her girls. He is guilty of: 1. 18.2-434 What deemed perjury 2. 8.01-4.3 Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury 3. 18.2 -481 Treason Resisting the execution of the laws under color of its authority 4. 17.1 105 (b) Designation of judges to hold courts and assist other judges
36

5. 18.2-21 When and where accessories tried: Judge Dawkins actions show he was in collusion with the Defendants and others to prevent due process He acted intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously in his collusion to protect Ilona a wife of a past judge part of the network. Defendants blatant abusive regard to the United States of America Constitution, Virginia Constitution, Civil Rights of Plaintiff, should be punished. He has disgraced the judicial system of Virginia and his oath of office. 6. Judge Dawkins by all Appearance had recused himself in April of 2008 when he became a Judge in the Circuit Court. In October of 2010 he reappeared to lie in court. In December of 2012 he appropriately recused himself and in October 13, 2012 he resurrected himself to sign and illegal and unprofessional order preventing Appellant once again from Due Process. 7. On October 13, 2012 in the Mail Plaintiff received a Box which has not been opened from the Circuit Court of Alexandria with the evidence that was submitted into the record on September 26, 2012. If the Judge had not submitted or had not taken away all of Plaintiffs right to file anything without his permission, along with the Order to quash the Les Pendens even when Plaintiff had shown the Financial money with back up due to Plaintiff close to $4 million dollars with interest. 8. By all appearance the Circuit Court of Alexandria has become a Trustee to the money owed Appellant by blocking Appellant taking way her Constitutional Right to protect her interests in a Lis Pendens from Corrupt attorneys.

JUDGE JAMES CLARK

1) The Circuit Court of Alexandria did not file the paper work through the regular channels of the Supreme Court of Virginia. It is believed Richard Bowen Potter was chosen with the support of the Supreme Court of Virginia to work in collusion with the other Defendants. 2) November 21, 2011 Order appointing Judge Richard Bowen Potter by The Supreme Court Chief Justice Cynthia D. Kinser To preside over grand jury proceedings on Monday, February 13, 2012 3) November 21, 2011 Letter from Patricia G. Davis to Judge Richard B. Potter that he will be presiding over the regular session of the Grand Jury. There is one matter, In Re : Grand Jury Request of Janice W. Grenadier, scheduled that the Judges have recused themselves from hearing.
37

4) She went on to say: By copy of this letter to Chief Judge Haddock and Mr. Semonian, I am advising them of your agreement to preside on February 13th. Ms. Diane Fiske, court administrator, is available to assist you. Please contact Ms. Fiske at 703-746-4123. 5) January 4, 2012 Letter Randy Sengel Commonwealth Attorney to Judge Potter informing him to refuse JWG in front of the Grand Jury as Plaintiff is not one of his witnesss ( letter can be found under Exhibit 16) 6) Plaintiff contacts Supreme Court regarding letter and is informed anyone can write to a Judge Question: When Plaintiff wrote to the Chief Justice the letter was never given to him that Plaintiff had to write the Clerk of Court Patricia Harrington who ignored her. 7) January 4, 2012 Letter from Meghan S. Roberts threatening Plaintiff with legal action over $200. For infractions of code a gutter & RV parked in my driveway. Collusion with Randy Sengel in attempt to scare/intimidate Plaintiff. 8) January 7, 2012 Letter JWG to Meghan S. Roberts no intention of paying and reason why that she had spoken with the Code Enforcement and he had said to just call him when it was done. 9) January 9, 2012 Letter to The Honorable Cynthia Kinser Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court - Plaintiff did not send after conversation with Doug Robelen that anyone can write a Judge a letter. The issue is back in the Circuit Court and must be dealt with in the Circuit Court. 10) January 18, 2012 Filed Motion for sanctions against Randy Sengel commonwealth attorney for letter to Judge Potter. 11) January 18, 2012 Praecipe to be heard on January 25, 2012 12) January 20, 2012 Letter from Law Clerk Circuit Court of Alexandria that my Motion for Sanctions against Mr. Sengel would be heard by Judge Potter. Once again the Circuit Court of Alexandria does not follow the rules. 13) January 25, 2012 Judge Clark says it is not on his Docket he was unaware of it. Which I believe him. The Corruption is horrid in the Court house. That he had nor recused himself and wasnt going to. 14) February 1, 2012 - Motion filed to demand Ed Semonian Clerk of Court answer simple questions about Grand Jury - Since Alexandria has shown in the past not to follow the
38

rules of the courts It was reasonable for Plaintiff to ask basic questions which he refused to answer. Most likely he doesnt know the basic rules.

15) Parecipe filed on Feb 1 for Motion to be heard on February 8, 2012 by the new Judge Judge Clark who had not recused himself from hearing this case. Yet refused to hear Motion against Randy Sengel. 15) February 2, 2012 Letter Circuit Court of Alexandria Motion Sanctions against Ed Semonian to be heard at 9am February 13, 2012 by Judge Potter. 16) February 7, 2012 Letter to Circuit Court Judges & Ed Semonian Plaintiff planed on being in court on February 8, 2012 that Judge Clark had not recused himself. 17) February 8, 2012 Judge Clark in court confirms he has not recused himself from the matter and that it isnt on his docket. Yet Judge Clark then turns and says yes I am going to hear this even though it is not on my docket. Judge Clark needed to recuse himself if he did not want to hear my motions. The laws and rules of the Court are very clear. By not recusing himself by all appearance he supports the corrupt behavior of the other Defendants. On September 26, 2012 the following picture evidence that was summited to the Judge and copies to the Defendants attorneys with no Objections by Defendants attorneys when asked by Judge Clark. Judge Clark allowed all evidence in the Notebook to be put into the record Judge James Clark should have recused himself to hear the case on September 26, 2012 as he had chosen to do in February of 2012 on two different occasions. On around October 11, 2012 Plaintiff went to the Clerks in the City of Alexandria office to confirm Plaintiffs file was in Order. Plaintiff found the Exhibits that the Judge had ordered into record where not in the file. When Plaintiff questioned it Judges Chambers informed the Clerks office after about 45 miniutes that Judge Clark was on the bench Plaintiff would need to come back. Plaintiff went to the 4th floor to find that was a lie. A clerk from Judges Chamber came down claiming she had been in court on September 26, 2012 and 1. The Judge never had them on the bench which is unture how would the Judge have them if they hadnt been on the bench and he hadnt received them in court? 2. They were never put into evidence - Judge Clark very clearly asked Defendants lawyers if they had objections and niether attorney nor defendant whom is a lawyer and was in the court room had an issue with them being entered on the record.

39

3. Then it was Plaintiff could check the transcripts and they would say that they were never entered into the record ( which means to Plaintiff the transcripts have been tampered with) 4. Prior to leaving the court house Sheriff Kapetanis of the Alexandria Sheriffs office escorted Plaintiff back into the Court house where Plaintiff requested the notebooks back from Defendants lawyers if they didnt wish to have them - They both in agreement informed Plaintiff they needed them as they had been entered into the record as evidence. Plaintiff walked away agreeing with them. The Clerk from Judges chambers then gave Plaintiff the choice of taking Plaintiffs Exhibits or they would be destroyed On October 13, 2012 in the Mail Plaintiff received a Box which has not been opened from the Circuit Court of Alexandria with the evidence that was submitted into the record on September 26, 2012. If the Judge had not submitted or had not taken away all of Plaintiffs right to file anything without his permission, along with the Order to quash the Lis Pendens even when Plaintiff had shown the Financial money with back up due to Plaintiff close to $3 million dollars with interest. By all appearance the Circuit Court of Alexandria has become a Trustee to the money owed Appellant by blocking Appellant taking way her Constitutional Right to protect her interests in a Lis Pendens from Corrupt attorneys. Judge Clark in his Order has taken away all of JWG and her daughters rights as a citizen in the United States of America by saying JWG cannot file anything without his permission. He didnt write it once he wrote it 3 times. The question is how premeditated was it. He has created a Trustee type situation that he must take into consideration when reading this and in his decision to sign this or not sign this. But, it should be date stamped November 20, 2012 showing I had met the requirements to perfect my Appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Judge Clark then went on to deny Plaintiff the right to oppose Judge Clarks personal Frivolous and disingenuous Statement of Facts. Plaintiff is not even sure that the Clerk of Court and Judge Clark have not tampered with her file. Plaintiff has proven more than once that she has not had a Judge with jurisdiction, that there has been Fraud on the court by Defendants and their attorneys. It should not be held against Plaintiff that the Old Boy Network doesnt like her or she is not a part of it. JWG here lays out the pattern of Circuit Court of Alexandria, their collusion and actions against JWG are willful with malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton and grossly reckless threats to twist the law to abuse the Power they possess by putting on the robe and entering the Court each day. Judge Kemler, Judge Dawkins & Judge Clark by their order
40

and by returning the documents submitted into court on September 26, 2012 and past Treason on the Court, have committed Fraud on the Court et al

Richard Bowen Potter One of the most corrupt Judges you will ever find
- On October 11, 2011 Chief Judge Donald M. Haddock - informed Plaintiff first she would be allowed in front of the Grand Jury. Chief Judge Donald M. Haddock who had informed Plaintiff back in 2007 that Plaintiff could not get a fair trial as WE LOVE ILONA now informs Plaintiff he was going to let her go in front of the Grand Jury but has decided not to as he believes Plaintiff is going to talk about him. James Manship an expert on the law of Grand Jurys and has been in front of a Grand Jury in Virginia stood up and explained then the only information that would be given to the grand jury was in regard to an attorney involved in the forgery of a Trust and pilfering the Trust through her law firm, Ilona. Judge Haddock refused. Demanded Plaintiff back on December 12, 2011 to go in front of the Grand Jury. This was then delayed and denied by Corrupt Judge Richard Bowen Potter who with collusion of Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel denied access to the Grand jury on February 13, 2012. September of 2011 Ilona and her attorney had made a generous donation for his portrait. (Judge Haddock) 1. February 13, 2012 Kidnapping of JWG in court room 4, keeping her from the Grand Jury Final Order by Judge Richard Potter She and her witnesses are Denied in front of the Grand Jury he and Randy Sengel Commonwealth Attorney are now the Gate Keepers / GOD of the Grand Jury 2. The Circuit Court of Alexandria after being disingenuous on October 11, 2012 held a Mickey Mouse type hearing on February 13, 2011 also called Kangaroo Court 3. Judge Potter points out Plaintiff had not paid filing fees, yet Ed Semonian clerk of Court never sent a deficiency notice nor when Plaintiff made filings never asked for such fee. 4. Judge Potter would not make a move in court without the permission of Randy Sengel. This is illegal and unprofessional of any Judge. He abused his authority, and acted outside the Color of the Law. It is a federal crime for anyone acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law.

41

5. Judge Potter conspired with the Commonwealth Attorney and other defendants to predetermine outcome of proceedings to delay and deny Janice Wolk Grenadier and her witnesss to go infront of the Grand Jury after being appointed to do so by the Chief Supreme Justice Cynthia Kinser

General District Judge Richard J. McCue

1. On June 20, 2012 in the General District Court of the City of Alexandria Judge McCue was disingenuous from all appearance when he claimed to have been appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia in an e-mail. 2. He refused to show a copy of such e-mail In a letter from the Supreme Court of Virginia it states there were no emails between Judge McCue 3. A Call to the Arlington Court house reviles they are also not aware of any e-mails or any correspondence that would put Judge McCue being appointed to such case.

4. Kathy the supervisor for the Judges in the Arlington Court House informed Janice not to send him any information as Judge McCue had requested extra copies of all documents be sent to him as well as filed in the General District Court. Kathy informed Janice the only reason he was their was they did a swap out of Judges. It was between Alexandria and Arlington only, which backs up the letter from the Supreme Court of Virginias Clerks office. 5. Case GV12 3028 set to be heard on September 20, 2012 was no more than Kangaroo Court. 6. Judge McCue had already decided the case in collusion with his friends and other colleges that had perpetrated this to intimidate Janice Wolk Grenadier further 7. in August of 2012 an Order from the Supreme Court of Virginia shows up in the file claiming to have been signed on June 12, 2012
42

by Supreme Court Justice Cynthia Kinser. It is by all appearance from other documents back dated.

City of Alexandria Court Administrator Diane Fiske Circuit - Court of the City of Alexandria Administrator
1. Informed Plaintiff the complete opposite of Virginia Code 17.1-105 (b) by the Circuit Court of Alexandria - That the only way The Chief Justice choose a Judge was if they "the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria " couldn't find a Judge. 2. October 17, 2007 Letter that the Motion filed on September 21, 2007 would be heard by Judge Frank A. Hoss on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @ 10.00 am. 3. November 15, 2007 Letter Judge Hoss had to rescheduled hearing for Wednesday, December 5, 2007. Instead of the 7 days to hear a Motion now it was 75 days till it was heard. 4. May 13, 2008 Letter Judge John McGrath had been chosen for Kangaroo Court to held on September 11th and 12th. 2008 at 10.00 am. 5. Plaintiff had asked on several occasions about the process of choosing a Judge. Each time Plaintiff was told the exact opposite of the law and the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. 6. June of 2010 Diane Fiske confirms all Judges had recused themselves 7. Janice was intentionally and maliciously led on several times by Diane Fiske that the Judges were being chosen fairly and at arms length. 8. In the Alexandria Bar on line OYEZ November of 2011, there is a Thank-you to Court Administrator Diane Fiske for her donation of a beautiful mirror for the Grenadier Room, the conference room adjacent to the law library. Is that how she justifies the corruption and her role in it?

JIRC Donald Curry - By Virginia Lawyers Weekly

Published: September 25, 2000

43

Senior Assistant Attorney General Donald R. Curry has been appointed as Counsel for the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, effective Nov. 1. He will succeed the retiring JIRC counsel, former Judge Donald H. Kent. Curry has been with the Virginia Attorney General's office for 18 years. He was assistant attorney general from 1982 to 1986, and senior ...

Martha Kent the x-wife and very, very good friend of Ilona Grenadiers was who informed me for Patsy Ticer I was no longer one of them and I needed to move on as I could not win. I no longer had any rights in Virginia. Donald Curry is part of the Old Boy Network and in this job he makes sure his friends are taken care of.

Receives complaint one day and returns a letter the next saying no reason to investigate. Informed me not to bother with complaint he was good friends with Judge James McGrath. And through collusion and friendships with the Legislature he has made it clear no complaints against these Judges will be heard. Donald Curry works in the same building as the Supreme Court in Richmond and is in cahoots with the Supreme Court Justices & Judges. That State of Virginias Old Boy Network is very busy protecting each other, from their own crimes. Donald Curry has lost all immunity for not following and enforcing the Cannons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia. He has allowed his friendships to cloud his judgment and not do his job. Or is that why he got the job, the Judges knew what they could get away with. Donald Curry in 2009 refused to look at complaint filed against James McGrath On March of 2013 Janice Wolk Grenadier filed 5 more Judge complaints on (Haddock, Dawkins, Forkort, Brown, Potter) Instead of Donald Curry doing his job On February 20, 2013 he send a letter he couldnt change the outcome of the case there was nothing wrong with Judges not following the law the appropriate process was the appellate process. That same day the Supreme Court of Virginia denied my appeal. Showing the Collusion between JIRC and the Supreme Court of Virginia. JIRC and the Supreme Court of Virginia share the same building and the same relationship with Judge Donald Kent. As Donald Haddack in collusion with the Supreme Court of Virginia and others was able to block me from the Grand Jury October 11, 2011 then again February 13, 2012 with the help of Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel. Donald Curry by appearance retires in June of 2013. He does not do his job acts as a tool for these Judges to get away with murder, as there actions kill people, maybe not physically but the miscarriage of justice is something that kills a person. Donald Curry on February 21, 2013 one day before the Supreme Court of Virginia denied the appeal with no law again 44

Lawyers Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman See above under

Criminals

Jerry Heckman
Founding Partner to Keller Heckman, international law firm in Washington DC, 1st Cousin to the late Judge Albert Grenadier married December of 1985 to Ilona Grenadier. Blood Relative to Plaintiffs daughters. His mother sister to Sonia Grenadier whom he has benefitted from the theft of the funds that were stolen from Sonia Grenadier and Maliciously Manipulated from JWG. Part owner of the Monroe Ave Partnership that funds from the Sonia Grenadier Trust went into.

Ben DiMuro
Past President of the Virginia State Bar, which he helps support through the interest of his Escrow Account? Has designated 10% of his and his wife Sandys estate to the Virginia Law Foundation. Partner to DiMuroGinsburg law firm, which also John Tran & Hillary Collyer of DiMuroGinsburg for their actions are Defendants in this suit. 1. April of 1989 met with JWG and her then husband David to discuss a fire that he was representing GIC/Monroe Ave partnership for the overage on the insurance. David was 49% owner of GIC at the time. 2. April 17, 2009 Wrote threatening letter that JWG was trying to Extort money from Ilona - Money that Ilona owed JWG from malicious manipulation, and stealing it from JWG. 3. Through misc attached letters supports the lies of Ilona Grenadier even after given the evidence. 4. July 2009 is involved with e-mails from the Grenadiers to myself in the collusion of their racist bigot attitude to the fact I raised by girls Catholic. Calling the Pope a wanker 5. October of 2009 with the collusion of Randy Sengel - Commonwealth Attorney of the City of Alexandria, using bullying and scare tactics to get JWG charged with the Extortion game he had come up with in April of 2009 when hired by Ilona Grenadier and her law firm, to use whatever illegal and unprofessional tactics it took to dispose of exposer to her criminal activities.

45

6. By all appearance the Extortion issue with Randy Sengel bringing in the City of Alexandria Police Charles Pak to try and intimidate JWG. 7. By all appearance hired by Ilona Grenadier for his friendships, lack of integrity to work with the VSB, JIRC, Judges, and other Government employees in collusion to deny JWG due process.

8. Lied in Respondents Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Appeal Dated Feb 2, 2011 in the Supreme Court of Virginia on Page 2 Paragraph 2 - Here, Petitioner has failed to ensure that the record contains either transcripts or a written statement of facts. 9. By all appearance was involved in the delay of the Motion for Reconsideration to be heard in August of 2011.

10. Generous donation to Judge Haddocks Portrait Fund Thank you for helping me with my client Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman which continued in October of 2011 when Judge Haddock denied JWG in front of a Grand Jury. 11. By all appearance he and his law firm has worked in collusion with the actions of the City of Alexandria, Judges, Commonwealth Attorney, Clerk of Court, VSB, JIRC, Courts of Justice, the Democratic party, Virginia Legislators, Supreme Court of Virginia has acted intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously in their collusion to protect Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman founding partner to the law firm Grenadier, Anderson, Stracae, Duffett & Kiesler, the late wife of Judge Albert Grenadier, from being held responsible for her and her law firms criminal activity. Ben DiMuros blatant abusive actions in regard to the United States of America Constitution, Virginia Constitution, Civil Rights, religious rights of a citizen.

12. Ben DiMuro and his firm have worked in collusion to Intimidate, Maliciously Manipulate Janice Wolk Grenadier using Scare Tactics, the Alexandria Police, and the Courts of Virginia, motivated by financial interests and cronyism. Causing Janice Wolk Grenadier to suffer mentally and financially as well has her children innocent victims from his and their actions.

13. The acts of Mr. DiMuro are egregious and vicious against Janice a pro se, single mom with her 2 girls because they are Catholic and are x communicated from the Old Boy Network.
46

14. Ben DiMuro a lawyer officer of the court - by appearance is guilty of Bribery, perjury, Fraud on the Court, conspiracy/collusion to obstruct due process, Miscarriage of Justice, Appearance of Justice, conflict of interest, conflict of interest recusal, Breach of Fiduciary duties, ignoring his Oath of Office, Conspiracy against rights, and other violations of the VSB duties of an officer of the court. 15. That Ben DiMuro, John Tran & Hillary Collyer ccd each other regularly on documents submitted with the Court, letters, e-mails sent to JWG. Making an action of one an action of all three.

John Tran - Well-connected in the Old Boy Network - Former Assistant

Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Alexandria and Special Assistant United States Attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.. Engaged in bar activities dedicated to the improvement of the legal profession, including acting as General Counsel and Sr. Vice President of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Virginia, a member of the Vietnamese American Bar Association of Greater D.C., volunteering on the Board of the Directors for the Alexandria Bar Foundation and Potomac Legal Aid Services, serving as a member of the Virginia State Bar's Professionalism Faculty and Chair of the Bar's Information Technology Committee and assisting in the development of educational programs for the George Mason American Inn of Court. Mr. Tran is aware of the threats on Me & My girls to give the Judges in collusion with Ilona the information they need to deem me incompetent. When in truth I am not incompetent the collusion to protect the Judicial systems corruption and his Law Firms involvement - with the Bait and Switch game on the attorneys in his own law firm.

Hillary J. Coller
1. Lied in Respondents Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Appeal Dated Feb 2, 2011 in the Supreme Court of Virginia on Page 2 Paragraph 2 - Here, Petitioner has failed to ensure that the record contains either transcripts or a written statement of facts. 2. Hillary J. Collyer By all appearance was involved in the delay of the Motion for Reconsideration to be heard in August of 2011. DiMuroGinsburgs generous donation to Judge Haddocks Portrait Fund Thank you for helping me with my client Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman which continued in October of 2011 when Judge Haddock denied JWG in front of a Grand Jury. 3. By all appearance she and her law firm has worked in collusion with the actions of the City of Alexandria, Judges, Commonwealth Attorney, Clerk of Court, VSB, JIRC, Courts of Justice, the Democratic party, Virginia Legislators, Supreme Court of
47

Virginia, who have acted intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously in their collusion to protect Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman founding partner to the law firm Grenadier, Anderson, Stracae, Duffett & Kiesler, the late wife of Judge Albert Grenadier, from being held responsible for her and her law firms criminal activity. Ms. Collyers blatant abusive actions in regard to the United States of America Constitution, Virginia Constitution, Civil Rights, religious rights of a citizen.

4. Ms. Collyer and her firm have worked in collusion to Intimidate, Maliciously Manipulate Janice Wolk Grenadier using Scare Tactics, the Alexandria Police, and the Courts of Virginia, motivated by financial interests and cronyism. Causing Janice Wolk Grenadier to suffer mentally and financially as well has her children innocent victims from hers and Defendants actions.

5. The acts of Ms. Collyer were egregious and vicious against Janice a pro se, single mom with her 2 girls because they are Catholic and are x communicated from the Old Boy Network. 6. Ms. Collyer a lawyer officer of the court - by appearance is guilty of Bribery, perjury, Fraud on the Court, conspiracy/collusion to obstruct due process, Miscarriage of Justice, Appearance of Justice, conflict of interest, conflict of interest recusal, Breach of Fiduciary duties, ignoring her Oath of Office, Conspiracy against rights, and other violations of the VSB duties of an officer of the court. 7. That Ben DiMuro, John Tran and Hillary Collyer ccd each other regularly on documents submitted with the Court, letters, e-mails sent to JWG. Making an action of one an action of all three.

Heather Jenquine
1) Represented Ilona Grenadier in Court and Court filings 2) Lawyer with Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffitt & Keisler 3) President of the City of Alexandria Bar 4) Is in collusion with other Defendants and Ilona Ely Grenadier Freedman Heckman in the cover up of her illegal and unprofessional behavior. 5) As President as stated in her Address:
Three other board members and I attended the Conference of Bar Leaders Institute at the University of Richmond School of Law on March 5th. The BLI is a wonderful opportunity to meet and talk to other bar

48

leaders from across the state. We had the opportunity to hear panels of attorneys and judges speak about issues that are facing bar associations large and small. Warren David Harless, President Elect of the Virginia State Bar, was the keynote speaker and he spoke about three goals that should be the priority of a local bar association. The first is to foster professional camaraderie, the second is to maintain fellowship with and support the bench, and the third is to mentor young lawyers. I couldnt help but feel very satisfied with how the Alexandria Bar Association works toward meeting these goals

During the conference, there were multiple questions by different bar associations asking for advice on how to increase the involvement of their benches. I smiled knowing this was not a problem facing the Alexandria Bar. We have been blessed with an incredibly supportive and active bench. The rapport between the judges and members of the bar was clearly on display at the recent retirement dinner for Judge Donald Haddock, Sr. For those of who were not able to attend the event, you missed a truly memorable evening. The weather was perfect, the dinner was festive, and we heard wonderful tributes from Judge Kemler, Judge Kent, Judge Swersky and Judge Haddock, Jr. Putting together the dinner was truly a team effort and I would like again express my thanks to both Mary Burgess and Sidoux Mitchell for their work on the ground and to Judge Kemler and Judge Haddock, Jr. for all the help they provided in planning the event. Please stay tuned for details on the official portrait hanging which is tentatively scheduled for some time in June.

6) The corruption and collusion of the Judges, Bar, JIRC and government employees by the pictures and her statements as President of the City of Alexandria Bar are in direct conflict with the oath she took as an officer of the Court. 7) As a lawyer she saw and supported the unprofessional, illegal way Judges were chosen and was in collusion with the Judges, lawyers, and government employees, to prevent due process in court.
8)

Heather Jenquine in collusion with Judges, lawyers, and government employees, acted intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously in her actions to protect Ilona and David, wife and son of a past judge part of the network. Ms. Jenquines blatant abusive regard to the United States of America Constitution, Virginia Constitution, Civil Rights, Religious Rights of Plaintiff, Oath, as an officer of the court should be punished.

Ann Schmitt Fraud on the Bankruptcy Courts - Had a fiduciary responsibility to JWG
and the Bankruptcy Court. She in documents attached supported Ilona/David/GIC in receiving moneys that belonged to Plaintiff. Fraud on the Court & Perjury against JWG who paid Ann Schmidt and who Ann Schmidt had a fiduciary responsibility to the Court and to JWG. By appearance showed favoritism to Ilona/David/GIC part of her judicial network.

Michael Weiser

represented David M. Grenadier

49

1. As a lawyer he saw and supported the unprofessional, illegal way Judges were chosen and was in collusion with the Judges, lawyers, and government employees, to prevent due process in court. 2. July 26, 2010 Michael Weiser filed with the COA Circuit Court an Opposition to Motion at 4.54 seconds before 5pm with never reaching out to JWG that there was an issue with the date or could be an issue with the date of July 28, 2011 for Motion to be heard. 3. July 30, 2010 Ilona Grenadier files her opposition 4. Question: Michael Weiser, Ilona Grenadier and the Judges were in collusion to once again prevent due process, in a reasonable time. Justice delayed is Justice denied. 5. February 3, 2011 Respondents Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Appeal with Supreme Court of Virginia Mr. Weiser is Disingenuous with the Supreme Court when he states Appellant did not file a Statement of Facts untrue. 6. October 6, 2010 Motion for Sanctions against Attorney Michael J. Weiser, Esq. counsel for David Grenadier, Ilona Grenadier her council DiMuroGinsburg and the City of Alexandria Circuit Court. 7. February 3, 2011 Respondents Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Appeal Michael Weiser in collusion with Judges, lawyers, and government employees, acted intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously in his collusion to protect Ilona and David, wife and son of a past judge part of the network. Mr. Weisers blatant abusive regard to the United States of America Constitution, Virginia Constitution, Civil Rights, Religious Rights of Plaintiff, should be punished. Fraud on the Court for his disingenuous allegations Plaintiff hadnt filed a Statement of Facts for Supreme Court Appeal. 8. Michael Weiser on September 26, 2013 In a sworn affidavit on his legal fees. Michael Weiser shows more phone calls to Judges chambers then to his own clients. Ex-parte communication is what I asked for in sanctions against him in the past and was denied. Here is feels he is so above the law that he can admit to them with no consequences. Which the Supreme Court of Virginia by denying my Motion to compel him to disclose the conversations shows collusion to protect the criminal actions of an officer of the court.

City of Alexandria Attorneys Megan Roberts

50

1. Megan S. Roberts attorney for the City of Alexandria, abusive actions towards JWG are RETRIBUTION and RETALIATORY ACTIONS for JWG exposing corruption by several taxpayer paid employees of the Courts of the City of Alexandria. RETALIATORY actions are not legal. 2. Megan S. Roberts in collusion with The actions of the City of Alexandria, Judges, Commonwealth Attorney, Clerk of Court, VSB, JIRC, Courts of Justice, the Democratic party, Supreme Court of Virginia has acted intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously in their collusion to protect Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman founding partner to the law firm Grenadier, Anderson, Stracae, Duffett & Kiesler, the late wife of Judge Albert Grenadier, from being held responsible for her and her law firms criminal activity. 3. Her blatant abusive actions in regard to the United States of America Constitution, Virginia Constitution, Civil Rights, religious rights of a citizen. Ignoring the Oaths of Office she has taken.

4. She has worked in collusion to Intimidate, Maliciously Manipulate Janice Wolk Grenadier using Scare Tactics, the Courts of Virginia, motivated by financial interests and cronyism. 5. The acts of the Judges, government employees, Democratic legislators and lawyers are egregious and vicious actions against Janice a pro se, single mom with her 2 girls because they are Catholic and are x communicated from the Old Boy Network.

6. A few days prior to Thanksgiving a Code Inspector showed up at JWG home asking how she was coming with getting the gutter re-attached and the RV moved. JWG explained her financial difficulties and that she would in the next few weeks have the RV moved and the gutter fixed. He informed her not to worry and call him when it was completed. 7. JWG then learned through the Supreme Court that the City of Alexandria had not followed the customary procedure for filing the recusal paper work, they did not handle it appropriately. 8. The Question is was this to give Judge Haddock the space to retire prior to the Grand Jury finding him guilty of not following the rules of the Supreme Court. Or to find a corrupt Judge Which they did in Richard Bowen Potter.

51

9. The SATURDAY after Thanksgiving JWG was charged $200., 10. JWG has learned there is a moratorium on overtime work on a Saturday in the City of Alexandria.

11. Approximately a week later JWG was fined again. 12. These fines came after JWG contacted the Virginia Supreme Court after being blocked from exercising her RIGHT to speak to the Regular Grand Jury, blocked by both the Presiding Chief Judge Donald M. Haddock of the City of Alexandria Circuit Court, and by the City of Alexandria Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel. 15. November 19, 2011 the Chief Justice issued an ORDER for a specific date and time for JWG to go before a Grand Jury 16. JWG states the following facts will show these charges coincide with the unprofessional and illegal acts of other City and State Government employees. Because these acts are illegal, Megan S. Roberts and the City of Alexandria have lost sovereign immunity. 17. That the actions of Megan S. Roberts coincide with the actions of other Government employees (Judges, Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel, Clerk of Court Ed Semonian, etc.) to maliciously intimidate JWG, this is just one of the many scare tactics they are using, to try and scare JWG from following through with suits against other Government employees and complaints against them with other state agencies. 18. January 4, 2012 JWG receives a letter from Ms. Roberts threatening to sue her over the $200.00. 21. Plaintiff responses, with no intention of paying and why 22. On January 4, 2012 Randy Sengel writes a letter to Judge Bowne Potter who has been appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia Cynthia Kinser to oversee that Janice Wolk Grenadier goes before the Grand Jury. Randy Sengel writes Judge Potter that JWG is not one of his witnesses and should not be allowed in front of t he Grand Jury. 23. In what amounted to little more than a Kangaroo Court, proceeds to take place February 13, 2012 at the City of Alexandria Circuit Court when the Grand Jury met, where Randy Sengel proceeds to tell the Judge what he is allowed to do and not do.
52

24. On the morning of May 14, 2012 JWG delivers letter to Ms. Roberts she is on the list to be sued with other Government employees and lawyers that have prevented JWG from due process her United States Constitutional Rights, her Virginia State Constitutional and her Civil Rights. 25. May 14, 2012 Ms. Roberts has the Code Enforcement Lawmaster do a statement and in turn files suit against JWG. Mailing out a letter with the suit documents saying JWG had not responded to the $450. the City ALLEGES the JWG owed. JWG never received a letter from Ms. Roberts in regard to the $450.00. Ms. Roberts actions in November and May are abusive and RETALIATORY against JWG for her exposing Alexandria Corruption to Virginias Chief Justice. 26. JWG has filed a Counterclaim and Cross-Complaint 27. The day of Court it is Kangaroo Court and Janice had not subpoenaed her because George McAnderes said no need to she will be there.

George McAndrews VSB No 23618 - As corrupt in his actions as Megan

Roberts represented her corrupt actions with no hesitation and no integrity to the TRUTH.x

James L. Banks Jr. City of Alexandria Attorney - Backs the corrupt

actions of all City Employees

City of Alexandria Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Unprofessional & Disingenuous Has made himself the Gate Keeper God to the Grand Jury Ignoring the Crimes of the Judges Ignoring the Crimes of the Clerk of Court Using scare tactics and the police to show off his power

After Ben Dimuro put Extortion in the ear of everyone A detective shows up and interviews JW for over an hour, it is on tape, yet there is no record of this in the Police Department

6. Ignoring the crimes of Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman of Stealing, Lying
in court, Filing false documents in the courts, involved with the stealing of over $95,000. In the Sonia Grenadier Trust, With holding a note of JWGs, that her hate for Plaintiff and her girls is that they are Catholic and Ilona is Jewish
53

7. Using his power to intimidate JWG a single mom with two girls. 8. Suggesting JW takes her complaints to the Magistrate in Kangaroo Court where
JW was kidnapped and held there till the Grand Jury had been dismissed. Question: What is Randy Sengel, The Network and his friends so afraid of The TRUTH of their Collusion against Plaintiff to prevent Justice

9. October 11, 2012 JWG wrote a letter asking once again for a Special Grand Jury
to look into the actions of the Judges and the Clerk of Court for sending documents back through the mail that had been entered into evidence.

10. October 12, 2012 Randy Sengel returns a letter denying request in front of
Grand Jury

11. March 13, 2013 Attempt to get in front of the Grand Jury and blocked by Gate
Keeper Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel. Bryan Potter Randy Sengels hand-picked successor was in the Court Room.

12. March 2013 Randy Sengel is disingenuous in a letter to George McDermott in

regard to the Grand Jury. Stating JWG had a hearing and was denied to present to the Grand Jury - That hearing was Kangaroo court and ex-parte communications between Judge Potter and Randy Sengel.

City of Alexandria Clerk of Court Ed Semonian

1. September of 2007 when all the Circuit Court Judge's recused themselves, because of Ilona Greandier a lawyer/officer of the court lied in Court, it was Mr. Semonian's job to file the appropriate paper work with the Supreme Court of Virginia 2. Mr. Semonian since 2007 has been in collusion with the Circuit Court Judges, Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel, Supreme Court Justice Cynthia Kinser, State Legislators to prevent JWG due process.

3. It was Mr. Semonians job to insure on October 11, 2011, that JWG was permitted to go in front of the Grand Jury. 4. It was Mr. Semonians job to insure on October 11, 2011 that the appropriate paper work was submitted to the Supreme Court of Virginia for a Judge to be designated by the Supreme Court Justice Cynthia Kinser for December 12, 2012 at 9am when
54

JWG by Chief Judge Donald M. Haddock was demanded back to go in front of the Regular Grand Jury. 5. The paper work was not submitted to the Supreme Court of Virginia in a timely manner and customary appropriate channels. 6. It was Mr. Semonians job to insure that JWGs Motion for Sanctions against Randy Sengel was heard on January 25, 2012 by Judge Clark who confirmed with JWG that he had not recused himself. 7. It was Mr. Semonians job to answer reasonable basic questions about the Grand Jury when JWG asked them of him. Which he refused to do. 8. It was Mr. Semonians job to insure JWGs Motion for Sanctions against Mr. Semonian to be heard on February 8, 2012 was heard by Judge Clark or that Judge Clark then recused himself. Judge Clark did not recuse himself and heard other Motions that were not on his docket on February 8, 2012.

9. It was Mr. Semonians job to send a deficiency notice to JWG if any fees were due on case # MO 11001482, or to inform her when paper work was filed. 10. It was Mr. Semonians job on February 13, 2012 to insure JWGs file was in order Ed Semonian did not do his job. But with the support of The Network was reelected in November of 2011 for another 8 years. 11. It was Mr. Semonians job on February 13, 2012 to insure that JWG went in front of the Regular Grand Jury. Ed Semonian is guilty of actions Violated the Rule 17.1-105(b), his abuse of his authority, was acting under color of law willfully to deprive and conspire to deprive JWG of her rights protected by the Constitution or US law. His impropriety created the appearance of supporting the illegal and unprofessional behavior of the Virginia Circuit Court of Alexandria, other defendants, Ilona, David and supporting the wishes of Judge Haddock, Judge Klock, Judge Dawkins, Judge Bondareff Kemler and Judge Clark who had by appearance recused themselves and not filed the appropriate paper work with the Supreme Court of Virginia either in 2007 or 2012. The office of the Clerk in the City of Alexandria will not except any filings by Janice Wolk Grenadier.

VSB Virginia State Bar

55

Edward Davis Plaintiffs complaint with the Virginia State Bar was turned away by
Edward Davis, Counsel for the Virginia State Bar. JWGs Complaint was written with the help of a lawyer who teaches Ethics for the VSB, he was a bit shocked how it was handled, but, explained to JWG the people JWG was playing with were powerful! JWGs complaint against Ilona included the following: 1. Disingenuous with the Alexandria Court - lying in court and knowingly filing disingenuous papers with the Alexandria Circuit Court. 2. A letter dated February 8, 2008 saying JWG better drop the suit or else 3. Mismanagement of the Sonia Grenadier Trust by her law firm 4. With holding Plaintiffs Note which Ilona still has, for malicious manipulation, lie s, & fraud. 5. Legal ethics rule 1.16 (d)and (c) A letter dated June 23, 2009 from Mr. Davis - is Quoted "As explained to you previously, the fact that you disagree with the positions taken by your opponent, or with her tactics (which appear to be simple inducements not to proceed with your lawsuit), does not mean that she acted unethically." He then goes on for 2 1/2 pages. defending the malicious manipulation, illegal behavior of Ilona .- JWG having reviewed several situations where attorneys have lost the right to practice for a month for over charging or forgetting to file something with the courts. But, Ilona had past President of the Virginia State Bar Ben DiMuro who has also left 10% of his estate to the VSB represent her. Has Edward Davis send me a letter accusing me of being involved with the mismanagement, JWG had never seen any of the documents or anything till after the theft of the funds, in the Grenadier's Law Firm. The trust was run out of the Grenadier Law Firm. Virginia Bar Complaint Outline / Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman VSB Docket # 09-NAT-076104 July 28,2008 1st Complaint -

I refiled and was told I was no longer allowed to file complaints they would be ignored and they have - So everyone involved here can do as they please the VSB supports the illegal actions of all the lawyers and Judges -

56

James Michael McCauley - December 2010 friends JWG on Facebook, and tells
JWG a friend asked him to look into this on the side. JWG with good faith met with him when he was in the Washington DC area. He requested JWG in good faith send him the information to his home where he requested it to go. One year later Mr. McCauley hasn't had time to look at the information JWG sent him. Mr. McCauley is paid every day by the Virginia State Bar to look at Ethical problems. Mr. McCauley is the Ethic's Counsel for the Virginia State Bar, teaches classes to lawyers on Ethics and at Universities

Jon Huddleston Past President of the VSB that ignored what was going on State Legislature

Senator Patsy Ticer - Patsy Ticer is in collusion with the other Judges, Lawyers,
and Government employees, acted intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously in her collusion to protect Ilona a wife of a past judge part of the network. Patsy Ticers blatant abusive regard to the United States of America Constitution, Virginia Constitution, Civil Rights, Religious Rights of Plaintiff, should be punished. Patsy Ticer has lost all immunity for her actions. 1. November 3, 2008 I contacted my State Representative - Patsy Ticer and spoke in length with her assistant Peggy Pap. Peggy lived across the street from Judge Kloch.

2. JWG sent several other e-mails, phone calls to be ignored by Patsy Ticer

3. July 10, 2010 - again reached out and spoke with Peggy again to be ignored

4. February 2011 after many more e-mails and phone calls finally got a meeting set it up so JWG would meet with Martha Kent - Martha sat listened to JWGs situation - Then explained to JWG - She had walked in JWG shoes understood JWGs situation - she was the x-wife of a Judge (Judge Kent) She and her family members couldnt get a fair trial in Virginia - JWG needed to drop this JWG couldnt win and move on as JWG had no Rights in Virginia5. October 13, 2011 Knowing all the illegal and unprofessional behavior of Ed Semonian she hosts a fundraiser for him, with Willard Scott.
57

6. Patsy Ticer as Mayor of Alexandria & State Senator took an Oath of Office and has disgraced the oath by her actions against Janice Wolk Grenadier.

Martha Kent February 19, 2013 -

Learn that Martha Kent never worked for Patsy

Ticer - That our meeting was a set up by the Old Boys Network. She is a disgrace as a person, to have played this game. The question becomes what did she get paid for her role and actions to tell me She understood what I was going through- she had walked

in my shoes She and her family could not get a fair trial either Her niece had an issue as well as she had - she was the x-wife of a Judge Judge Kent That I could not win That I was no longer one of them I had no rights in the State of Virginia. She apparently does not care enough about herself or her family to fight for her rights. Maybe Judge Kent paid her to go out and do his dirty work. Remember his best friend Chief Judge Haddock said to my face You will never get a Fair trial we LOVE ILONA and he proceeded to compromise the State of Virginia, the State of Virginias Legal System.

Senator Adam Ebbin

January 2012 - Adam P. Ebbin elected the Senate of

Virginia to replace retiring Senator Patsy Ticer, representing the 30th district in Northern Virginia - agrees to meet with JWG in Alexandria City Hall He then has his assistant Jacob meet with JWG. 1. April 10, 2012 e-mailed him a letter in hope of support 2. Several attempts through e-mails, Facebook and phone calls to connect with him, he ignores all attempts 3. Last e-mail was to never contact him again he would not support this issu

Delegate DAVID ENGLIN

- JWG representative Do not contact me about this issue I do not care.

1. JWG sent several other e-mails, phone calls to be ignored by David Englin
58

2. July 10, 2010 - again reached out and spoke with Mr. Englins office ignored 3. February 2011 after many more e-mails and phone calls finally got a meeting set it up so JWG would meet with an assistant. 4. David Englin as a Delegate took an Oath of office in 2006:

Courts of Justice
On or around December 14, 2011 - JWG spoke up against Justice Lemons at his re-hearing. Justice Lemons assured Janice they had used the law to deny her appeal. Janice on his advice file a Motion to have the law used disclosed as fundamental right to know. The Motion was DENIED no law was used. On or around December 14 , 2012 after Janice had informed the Courts of Justice she would be there to speak up against Judge Kemler and Judge McCue, arriving 15 minutes early Janice is informed they had already left. Janice was able to still inform the committee why they should not be renewed. The committee was rude and disrespectful. Cases that these Judges have ruled in Favoritism and Cronyism instead of the Rules and the Laws of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the United States of America Constitution and the Virginia Constitution Ignoring the Law to protect Government employees that have had devastating outcomes which shows that I am not alone and that there are more cases like this out there Mike Fields John Arundel DeAnne R. Upson Robby Niese Nancy Dunning
1.

Mike Fields - The court officials known at this time are: the Clerk of the Court
Edward Semonian Jr., the Commissioner in Chancery Michael Weiser, the Honorable Chief and Presiding Judge Lisa B. Kemler, and attorney Ira S. Saul. The proceedings referenced by this Petition are: CL 04-001130, CH 04-001230, and CL 05-001284 59

Page 17 - Of Michael Fields Petition for Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition to the Supreme Court of Virginia Reads: The court officials improper conduct is not limited to Mr. Field and the relief sought in the Petition is of significant public importance. For example, had the court officials performed their mandated ministerial duties in these proceedings, the bankruptcy of General Motors and the governments subsequent multibillion dollar bailout of the new GM and the old GMAC would have been avoided. Instead Mr. Field and his counsel have been obstructed from seeking relief and denied access to the records at the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria by threats of physical harm and the unethical behavior evidenced in this Petition.

Exhibit 1 Exhibit admitted into evidence, over Mr. Fields objection that it contained attorney- client privileged communications, by commissioner in Chancery Weiser however omitted from his report and the certified record

Counsel for the Baker Plaintiffs, Ira S. Saul, was suspended from the practice of law in Virginia and Maryland for many years after being convicted of four counts of bank fraud criminal acts reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. See Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ira Stephen Saul. 2.

John Arundel
Perhaps it does.

- "It doesn't get any crazier than that."

In a second hostile takeover of The Alexandria Times in 2008, multimillionaire new owners John H. Ariail Jr.and Denise and Will Dunbar were accused by the paper's founder and co-owner of allocating $10,000 per month in "consulting fees" to the Arial's attorney David Beckett of Jackson Hole, Wyoming (where the Arials vacation
60

and own a ranch), without the consent or knowledge of the Publisher. A further complaint was that the new owners had replaced his bookkeeper with theirs, Marilyn Essex, who court records indicate did prison time in West Virginia for embezzlement. Essex still works at The Alexandria Times and is listed on its web site as Accountant. Confronted with the claims, the Ariails locked the Times' founder and Publisher out of the newspaper office at 110 South Pitt Street (a building the Arials own but had made its Publisher the sole responsible leaseholder) and refused to pay the founder personally for his 49% ownership interest. Beckett and Arial hired Craig Lancto as its new publisher, but Lancto was dismissed from the paper after less than a month, after being confronted with submitting articles under a pseudonym and attempting to bill the Times for them. A subsequent Publisher, Matt Danielson, was also locked out of the paper a year later, and its Associate Publisher Jeanne Theismann resigned in protest. Alexandria court documents show that Theismann has sued the paper for back pay. The case goes to Alexandria Circuit Court in December. Coincidentally, the case against the Ariails and Dunbars will be heard in the same courthouse where Donald M. Haddock Sr. is the Presiding Circuit Court Judge and Donald M. Haddock, Jr. is a Circuit Court Judge. For years, the legal interests of the Arial family, were represented by Donald M. Haddock Sr. and Donald M. Haddock, Jr. while they were in private practice. While both attorneys are now sitting judges in Alexandria, they do not sit on the U.S. Circuit Court which decided the Labovitz case Tuesday. Despite what may be perceived by an outsider as a conflict of interest, court records indicate that Judge Donald M. Haddock Jr. last year ruled in favor of a routinue court request by Alex Times LLC, owned by his former client John H. Ariail, Jr., who is now deceased. In another strange twist, after Labovitz battled for years with the conservative Washington Times newspaper in court over ownership of the Connection Newspapers and unpaid printing bills, last year Alexandria Times Managing Director Denise Dunbar hired Patrice V. Culligan as its new Publisher. Dunbar told friends that she wanted the paper to have a more "conservative voice" and said the paper could achieve synergies with The Washington Times, owned by the Unification Church, a religious movement founded by Korean religious leader Sun Myung Moon and best known for its mass weddings. Times Publisher Patrice Culligan is the wife of Tom Culligan, the Chief Marketing and Revenue Officer of The Washington Times.
61

Labovitz's case was investigated by Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Tim Belevetz, as well as by the IRS-Criminal Investigation Division and Justice Departments Tax Division Trial AttorneyCaryn Finley. With John Ariail's passing last February, his ownership interest of Alex Times LLC has now passed to the "Ariail Family." One of the Ariail family members who owns the Alexandria Times is Shreve Ariail, an Assistant United States Attorney. The United States Attorneys Office investigated the case against Labovitz. per article From Local Kicks September 29, 2011 http://www.localkicks.com/community/news/the-fall-of-a-paper-tiger-gazettepacket-owner-peter-labovitz-headed-to-prison-

3.

Ms. DeAnne R. Upson

- Case No. 10-CV-360 - There are many other victims

because Dawkins, Jamborsky and Haddock were always so bold in their statements both on transcript and off. They must have been getting away with this corruption for a very long time. My federal case is 10-CV-360 in DC Federal District Court and is Upson v. DC et al Haddock sua sponte sealed my custody case and issued a capias for my arrest for refusing to show up to a Show Cause hearing for which he had absolutely no jurisdiction. No one in the case lives in VA! The capias can't be enforced outside of VA Stated in Case No. 10-CV-360

In the further interests of the ends of justice, Mother prays this Court consider in ruling on this Motion for Reinstatement that this Child is the result of internet sexual predation and rape by the biological father who is a $50 million net worth well-connected Washington DC litigation lawyer who evidence indicates bribed DC, VA, and MD judges and officials to achieve this now coming 6 year kidnapping and concealment through improper forum shopping back and forth across the Potomac River through bribing judges to hear cases with promises of political favors including assistance with recommendations for higher court appointment. Evidence was presented to the state courts and officials of the biological fathers pattern and practice of forum shopping and fraud upon the courts and criminal activity, but that evidence was completely ignored resulting in a striking lack of empathy for this Mother and Child who are victims of his internet sexual predation and rape, clearly extreme animosity, and harmed by

62

Mothers refusal to be coerced into aborting this Child by William Earl Wallace III.

4. Joseph R. Perry V. The Commonwealth of Virginia Case No: CL12-930

- In the Circuit Court of Arlington County - Judge Richard Bowen Potter in collusion with the DMV of Virginia
1. This is clear and convincing evidence in itself and beyond a

reasonable doubt that no habitual offender hearing occurred in Prince William County on June 8, 1990, and this fact needs no corroboration but is completely corroborated by Petitioners exhibit 3 (attached) and is the Lois Rusk file copy letter which has been dishonestly allowed to merely loiter about Pr. Wm. Co. file 23762 to masquerade as notice in false support of and in an illegal way to shore up the falsified jurisdictional statement placed in the forged order.

2.

The apparent fraud and forgery repaired nothing and on May 25, 1990, the

Pr. Wm. Co. Court forfeited its potential subject matter jurisdiction. 3. The Petitioner has more than met the controlling factors for relief under

Va. Code 8.01-428(D) pursuant to Charles v. Precision Tune, Inc., 243 Va. 313, 414 S.E.2d 831 (1992) and by several orders of magnitude over what was necessary. 4. Finally, Petitioner submits that this Court has an obligation to the Petitioner

as well as the Commonwealth to vacate the judgment of conviction in this matter as the failure to do so would clearly be fraud upon the Court in itself by the proliferation of the June 12, 1990 criminal acts. The Petitioner further requests that this court declare the Prince William County documents are void ab initio under the Virginia Declaratory Judgment Act. Va. Code Ann. 8.01-184 and to remove the associated felony from the Petitioners record through expungement pursuant to 19.2-392.2

5.

NIESE v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

Robby NIESE v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA. Record No. 012007. -- June 07, 2002

Present: All the Justices. Blair D. Howard, Warrenton (Kenneth R. Weiner, Fairfax; Howard, Morrison & Howard, Warrenton; Weiner, Weiner & Weiner, Fairfax, on brief), for appellant.Karen S. Snow (Ignacio B. Pessoa, Alexandria; Office of the City Attorney, on brief), for appellee.

63

In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court erred in sustaining the City of Alexandria's (the City) special plea of sovereign immunity and dismissing Robby Niese's (Niese) motion for judgment. I. Facts and Proceedings Below The special plea of sovereign immunity was submitted to the trial court on the pleadings. [W]here no evidence is taken in support of a plea in bar, the trial court, and the appellate court upon review, consider solely the pleadings in resolving the issue presented. Lostrangio v. Laingford, 261 Va. 495, 497, 544 S.E.2d 357, 358 (2001). The facts as stated in the pleadings by the plaintiff are taken as true for the purpose of resolving the special plea. Id. Niese's pleadings allege that during the summer of 1998, Niese was experiencing behavioral difficulties with her son, Steven Niese (Steven). Steven was admitted to This Way House, a group home and counseling center In August 1998, Niese met Raleigh Harsley (Harsley), a City On September 1, Harsley visited Niese's place of that provided services to troubled families.

police officer, and sought his help with her son's problems.

employment in a marked police cruiser, where he told Niese that he wanted to make a game plan for Steve. Harsley agreed to take Steven to the Sports Orientation Night at Steven's high school that evening. Niese arrived at Steven's high school later that evening but she did not see her son at the event. cruiser. When she located Harsley in the parking lot and inquired about her son, Harsley directed her into his marked police Niese complied and when she again inquired about Steven, Harsley told Niese he would follow her to After arriving at Niese's home, Harsley asked Niese to accompany Niese rode in Harsley's marked police cruiser to the restaurant. her home where they could discuss her son. him to a restaurant to discuss her son. apartment. bedroom.

Niese's pleadings allege that Harsley subsequently drove her home and insisted that he accompany Niese to her At the door, Harsley demanded to be admitted to the apartment in order to inspect Steven's Niese allowed Harsley to enter the apartment, but when he asked to see Niese's bedroom, Niese At the front door, Harsley suddenly grabbed Niese, Niese's pleadings alleged that over her repeated protests,

refused and attempted to escort him from her apartment. overpowered her, and removed some of her clothing.

Harsley forcibly assaulted and raped her and then immediately exited the apartment. Two days later, on September 3, Niese reported the rape, and the fact that the perpetrator was a City police officer, to a counselor with the City's Department of Mental Health. 6, she reported the rape to Chuck Selner, an administrator at This Way House. On September 18, Harsley arrived at Niese's apartment complex in his marked police cruiser. Niese for the second time. as a result of Harsley's rape. terminate the pregnancy. Niese's On September

pleadings allege that Harsley gained entrance to her apartment by means of intimidation, where he raped During the middle to latter part of September, Niese learned that she was pregnant She informed Harsley of her pregnancy, and Harsley insisted that Niese Harsley began contacting Niese by telephone and in person at Steven's high school,

and he informed Niese that he would not allow her to hurt him.

64

On October 2, in response to a demand from Harsley, Niese met him at the City Police Department to discuss the pregnancy. Niese's pleadings allege that Harsley then drove her to Washington D.C. and stopped his vehicle in a park area, where he raped Niese for the third time. On October 5, Niese sought assistance from the Office on Women, Sexual Assault Response and Awareness Program (SARA), a department under the authority and supervision of the City. Niese reported to Sara Donahue (Donahue), the SARA program director, that she had been raped by a City police officer. reported Niese's complaint to the City Police Department on October 7. Also on October 7, Niese's pleadings allege that while seeking medical care related to her pregnancy, she reported the rapes and the identity of the perpetrator to the Alexandria Women's Health Clinic. Despite Niese's numerous reports to various City agencies, on October 8 Harsley arrived at Niese's apartment, directed her into his vehicle, drove to an empty parking lot in Arlington, and raped Niese for the fourth time. On December 8, as a result of arrangements made by Donahue, Niese spoke with detectives from the City Police Department to discuss her original complaint of rape by Harsley. 2000. On August 31, 2000, Niese filed a motion for judgment against Harsley and the City, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for sexual assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent retention. In Count I, Niese alleged that Harsley, while acting as an employee and/or agent for the City, She maintained that [a]t all times relevant herein, Harsley was an repeatedly sexually assaulted her. The City Police Department conducted an investigation of Niese's complaint, and as a result Harsley was terminated from his employment on February 3, Donahue

employee of the City and was clothed with the authority of an Alexandria police officer [and he] was entrusted by the City with a marked Alexandria police cruiser, which he drove during many of his contacts with her. a direct and proximate result of the sexual assaults, Niese alleged that she suffered severe and permanent emotional and mental injuries. In Count II, she alleged that Harsley, while acting as an employee of the City, through intentional threats and intimidation, produced fear of severe bodily injury to Niese and her son. standards of decency and morality. She further alleged that Harsley perpetrated outrageous and intolerable acts upon [her], which were offensive to the generally accepted Niese alleged that she suffered severe and permanent emotional distress as the direct and proximate result of Harsley's conduct. In Count III, Niese claimed that the City negligently retained Harsley as an employee after she sought assistance from the Department of Mental Health, a department of the City, and from SARA, another City department. Niese alleged that the City had either actual or constructive notice of the rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated by Harsley, and the City failed to exercise ordinary care in the investigation of her reports. She further alleged As a direct that the City failed to properly train its employees to handle sexual assault and rape complaints. As

65

and proximate result of the City's negligent retention of Harsley, Niese alleged that she was repeatedly raped and suffered from severe and permanent emotional and mental injuries. In Count IV, Niese sought punitive damages for the acts and omissions of Harsley, while acting as an employee and/or agent for the City, and while clothed with the authority of an Alexandria police officer, and the acts and omissions of the City, by and through its employees and agents. Niese's rights, health and safety. The City filed a special plea of sovereign immunity and asserted that the maintenance and operation of a municipal police force is a governmental function, and a city is immune from lawsuits alleging negligence, including intentional torts in the provision of police service. By letter opinion dated December 21, 2000, the trial court sustained the City's special plea of sovereign immunity to Counts I through III. The court noted that the doctrine of sovereign immunity protected the municipality from allegations of negligence by its police officers and held that [i]t is generally accepted that the sovereign is immune from suit for the intentional, as well as negligent, torts of its employees engaged in governmental functions. amend her pleadings. Niese filed her amended motion for judgment on February 14, 2001. In the amended motion she included Counts I through IV of the original motion for judgment and added two additional counts: Count V Violation of Statutory Duties and Count VI Punitive Damages for Violation of Statutory Duties. In Count V, Niese argued that the City's employees violated Code 63.1-55.3, which placed an affirmative duty upon the Department of Mental Health counselor to whom Niese had reported the rape to immediately report the matter to the local law enforcement agency. According to Niese, no report was ever generated and because the employees and staff of the Department of Mental Health were acting as agents and employees of the City, the City failed to perform its statutory duties pursuant to Code 63.1-55.3. Niese maintained that the reporting requirements were ministerial not discretionary.1 Count VI requested punitive damages for the violations alleged in Count V. The City filed a special plea of sovereign immunity to the amended motion for judgment. In response to the On February 12, 2001, the trial court entered a consent order granting Niese leave to Niese alleged that these acts and omissions constituted willful, wanton and malicious conduct and demonstrated a conscious and utter disregard of

allegation of a violation of statutory duties, the City argued that the provision of counseling and mental health care services by a municipal corporation to its citizens is the essence of the promotion of public health and well being, and therefore, is a governmental function. Accordingly, the City maintained that it was immune from any and all liability arising out of the allegedly negligent failure by City employees to report the assaults. By letter opinion dated May 23, 2001, the trial court sustained the City's special plea of sovereign immunity to Niese's amended bill of complaint. The trial court held that the City was performing a governmental function

66

when providing the mental health counseling and treatment; therefore, the trial court held that the City would be immune from suit even if its employees were not immune. The court stated: Assuming, as the Court has here, that the [City] employees failed in the performance of a ministerial duty [to report under the statutes], the only way that the City itself could be liable is by the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior. To impose liability upon the municipality or state for the negligent acts of its employees in the performance of ministerial duties while engaged in governmental functions emasculates the sovereign immunity doctrine. See, Ashbury v. City of Norfolk, 152 Va. 278 [147 S.E. 223] (1929); James v. Jane, 221 Va. 43 [282 S.E.2d 864] (1980), wherein the Court distinguishes between the sovereign and its employees in imposing liability under these circumstances. The trial court entered an order memorializing its decision on June 12, 2001. Having previously dismissed the

City as a defendant to Counts I-III2 of the amended motion for judgment, the trial court sustained the City's special plea of sovereign immunity to Counts V and VI of the amended motion and dismissed the City from the action with prejudice.3 Niese appeals the judgment of the trial court. II. Analysis On appeal, Niese asserts that the City is not protected by sovereign immunity for the intentional torts committed by Harsley while he was functioning in a government capacity. Niese further argues that the City's negligent Finally, retention of Harsley, after receiving notice of his misconduct, is not protected by sovereign immunity. not immune from liability for its employees' negligence in failing to report the sexual assaults. The City argues that it acts in a governmental capacity when maintaining a police force. According to the City, [w]hen a municipal corporation acts in its governmental capacity, it is considered to be an agency of the state and, therefore, it is not liable for damages to an individual who was injured by the wrongful act of an employee while the employee is engaged in the performance of the governmental function. Therefore, the City maintains that it is not liable for the intentional torts of its employee committed while the employee was carrying out the governmental function. The City further argues that decisions regarding the Finally, the hiring and employing of an individual police officer are an integral part of the g overnmental function of providing a police force; accordingly, the City is protected by sovereign immunity for these acts. City maintains that because the provision of mental health counseling is a governmental function, the City's immunity is not abrogated by its employees' failure to perform a ministerial task as part of [his or] her employment with the City. [T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity is alive and well in Virginia. S.E.2d 657, 660 (1984). Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 307, 321

Niese maintains that the reporting requirement of Code 63.1-55.3 is a ministerial act; accordingly, the City is

It is well established that the doctrine of sovereign immunity protects municipalities As we explained in Hoggard:

from tort liability arising from the exercise of governmental functions. Hoggard v. City of Richmond, 172 Va. 145, 147-48, 200 S.E. 610, 611 (1939).

67

[A] municipality is clothed with two-fold functions; one governmental, and the other private or proprietary. corporate limits. In the performance of a governmental function, the municipality acts as an To this end there is delegated to, or imposed upon, a municipality, by the In the agency of the state to enable it to better govern that portion of its people residing within its charter of its creation, powers and duties to be performed exclusively for the public.

exercise of these governmental powers a municipal corporation is held to be exempt from liability for its failure to exercise them, and for the exercise of them in a negligent or improper manner. This immunity is based on the theory that the sovereign can not [sic] be sued without its consent, and that a designated agency of the sovereign is likewise immune. There are granted to a municipal corporation, in its corporate and proprietary character, privileges and powers to be exercised for its private advantage For an injury resulting from negligence in their exercise or performance, the municipality is liable in a civil action for damages in the same manner as an individual or private corporation. Id. In general, a municipality is immune from liability for negligence associated with the performance of governmental functions, but can be held liable for negligence associated with the performance of proprietary functions. Id., see also Burson v. City of Bristol, 176 Va. 53, 63, 10 S.E.2d 541, 545 (1940). Portsmouth, 237 Va. 167, 171, 375 S.E.2d 747, 750 (1989). A function is governmental if it is directly tied to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. Edwards v. City of Stated another way, a governmental function involves the exercise of an entity's political, discretionary, or legislative authority. Carter v. Chesterfield County Health Comm'n, 259 Va. 588, 591, 527 S.E.2d 783, 785 (2000) (citing First Va. Bank-Colonial v. Baker, 225 Va. 72, 301 S.E.2d 8 (1983)). [A] municipal corporation acts in its governmental capacity in maintaining a police force. Hoggard, 172 Va. at 148, 200 S.E. at 611. Accordingly, a municipality is immune from liability for a police officer's negligence in the performance of his duties as a police officer. Although this Court has not addressed the issue of a municipality's liability for an intentional tort committed by an employee in the performance of a governmental function, other courts have addressed the issue. For example, in Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215 (4th Cir.1999), Carter sued the City of Danville and others, asserting both federal claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law tort claims arising out of her treatment by officers of the City of Danville Police Department. Id. at 217. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the City on all of Carter's claims. Id. With respect to Carter's state law tort claims against the City, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed and held that a City is immune from liability for the intentional torts of its employees. Id. at 221. The court explained that it could find no authority that this immunity has been waived. Id. Furthermore, the court noted that the Virginia Tort Claims Act, which waives the state's immunity for certain claims, unequivocally states that the Act

68

cannot be so construed as to remove or in any way diminish the sovereign immunity of any county, city or town in the Commonwealth. Id.; see Code 8.01-195.3. We agree with the reasoning of the Fourth Circuit and hold that a municipality is immune from liability for intentional torts committed by an employee during the performance of a governmental function. her complaint concerning her son. In the present case, Harsley committed the alleged intentional torts against Niese during the ongoing investigation of The investigation of a citizen's complaint is certainly part of the Accordingly, the City cannot be held liable for the alleged governmental function of providing a police force. intentional torts committed by Harsley. Niese next asserts that the City's retention of Harsley as a police officer, after receiving notice of his alleged misconduct, is negligence which is not protected by sovereign immunity. independent tort of negligent retention is recognized in Virginia. Jackman, 257 Va. 256, 260, 513 S.E.2d 395, 397 (1999). Niese correctly notes that the Southeast Apartments Mgmt., Inc. v. As stated

However, the doctrine of sovereign immunity protects

municipalities from liability for negligence in the performance of governmental functions. 611.

previously, the maintenance of a police force is a governmental function. Hoggard, 172 Va. at 148, 200 S.E. at The decision to retain an individual police officer is an integral part of the governmental function of Accordingly, we hold that the City is immune from liability for any negligence maintaining a police force.

associated with its decision to retain a specific police officer. Niese urges this Court to adopt an exception to the rule of sovereign immunity for the tort of negligent retention, as we did with respect to the doctrine of charitable immunity for the tort of negligent hiring. See J. v. Victory In Messina, Tabernacle Baptist Church, 236 Va. 206, 210, 372 S.E.2d 391, 394 (1988) (holding that the independent tort of negligent hiring operates as an exception to the charitable immunity of religious institutions). 228 Va. at 307-08, 321 S.E.2d at 660, we explained the purpose behind sovereign immunity as follows: One of the most often repeated explanations for the rule of state immunity from suits in tort is the necessity to protect the public purse. However, protection of the public purse is but one of several purposes for the rule

[S]overeign immunity is a privilege of sovereignty and without the doctrine there would exist inconvenience and danger to the public in the form of officials being fearful and unwilling to carry out their public duties [I]f the sovereign could be sued at the instance of every citizen the State could be controlled in the use and disposition of the means required for the proper administration of the government. (Internal citations omitted). negligent retention. Finally, Niese maintains that the reporting requirement in Code 63.1-55.3 is ministerial, and the City is not protected by sovereign immunity.4 The 1998 version of Code 63.1-55.3(A) requires social workers, mental health professionals, and others who [have] reason to suspect that an adult is an abused, neglected or exploited The same purposes do not underlie the doctrine of charitable immunity and we

decline to create an exception to the protection afforded by sovereign immunity for the independent tort of

69

adult to immediately report the suspected abuse to the local department of the city or county where the abuse was believed to have occurred. Similarly, Code 63.1-55.3(C) states that any person required to make a report in Code 63.1-55.3(A) who has reason to suspect that an adult has been sexually abused shall immediately report the sexual abuse to the local law enforcement agency. We have addressed the liability of cities and towns on numerous occasions and have never retreated from the rule articulated in Burson v. City of Bristol, 176 Va. 53, 63, 10 S.E.2d 541, 545 (1940), wherein we held: In this State, we have long determined the liability or non-liability of a city for acts committed by it according to whether the act was done in its governmental or proprietary character. or ministerial nature, the city is liable. Niese's characterization of the reporting requirement as ministerial is incorrect. of judgment and discretion in concluding that a report must be made. questionable. The words, who has reason If the act be done in carrying out a governmental function, the city is not liable; if it be done in the exercise of some power of a private, proprietary

to suspect that an adult is an abused, neglected or exploited adult, in Code 63.1-55.3(A), require the exercise While individual cases may present patently obvious circumstances where reporting must take place, other cases may be subtle and more We must focus upon the statute and not the circumstances in this case to determine whether the We hold that the provisions of Code 63.1-55.3 applicable to this case impose a statutory duty is ministerial.

discretionary duty and not a ministerial duty upon those individuals with reporting requirements. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court sustaining the City's plea of sovereign immunity. Affirmed. FOOTNOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. Niese further argued that alleged reporting requirements under Code 37.1-84.1 were violated. Count IV sought punitive damages for the complaints alleged in Counts I through III. On July 25, 2001, the trial court entered an order to stay the proceedings against Harsley, pending a The question whether provision of mental health services by the City is a governmental function is not She has abandoned this argument on appeal.

decision by this Court in this appeal. addressed in an assignment of error. Opinion by Justice DONALD W. LEMONS - The following is the link of this horrid story http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1264674.html

5. Don't forget one of the Saddest Cover up's - The murder of Nancy Dunning

70

And now that Sheriff Dunning is Dead - They say - We should have questioned him?

Nancy Dunning several times after David Grenadier left JWG Stopped by Checking on JWG - and now JWG realizes the warning was to be careful of my life. Unfortunately she didnt take her own advice.

Conclusion All Orders to date are VOID Without Due Process the Orders are VOID and there is no Statute of Limitations.
The Eleventh Amendment, which was the first Constitutional amendment after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states in federal court. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state." Writing for a four-Justice dissent in Alden, Justice David Souter said the states surrendered their sovereign immunity when they ratified the
71

Constitution. The dissenting justices read the amendment's text as reflecting a narrow form of sovereign immunity that limited only the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. They concluded that the states are not insulated from suits by individuals by either the Eleventh Amendment in particular or the Constitution in general. Failure to obtain substantial Justice in state courts lead to suits being filed in Federal Court under Title 42 United States Code standard 1983 .This suit asks for Relief of all orders made in violation of the Law ,that Due Process of Law be allowed ,and further issue relief as the court deems appropriate . The Federal District Judge in the Case stated that although the Court does not know the details of the case that a Judge performing Judicial Functions enjoys absolute immunity and further stated that a Jury would not be allowed in the case .The appellate court without allowing a brief supported this order . While a Judge performing Judicial functions may enjoy Immunity , denial of constitutional and civil rights are absolutely not a judicial function and conflicts with any definition of a Judicial function. Response to denials were Motions to reinstate using the Constitutional Articles as a major Guide , along with the Judges Oath of Office , and canons of Judicial Code of Conduct . The responses also included page after page of case law where both appellate courts and the Supreme Court did hold judges accountable when their knowing and willing actions fell outside the boundaries of their job description . That failure to follow simple guidelines of their post makes a judges action no longer a Judicial act but an Individual act as the act represents their own prejudices and goals . Case Law also states that when a judge acts as a trespasser of the law , when a judge does not

72

follow the law ,he then loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judges orders are void ,of no legal force or affect . In a limited government , a government limited by the constitution, the violation of a citizens rights should never be justified due to the overriding government goals or objectives ,and that no branch of the government be allowed to extend its power beyond its legal limits . The above issues are one of the outstanding reasons why the framers of the constitution installed Trial by Jury as the Seventh Amendment . In a government of the people is it not a threat to our way of life to allow Government actors to ignore the guidelines that define their power . Several judges have violated JWGs constitutional rights. Several of the above people have discriminated against JWG being treated differently than other people in similar situations by reason of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference or political opinion by the Old Boy Network. JWG has lost certain rights without a meaningful hearing or even an opportunity to be heard. JWG has been deprived of all constitutional protection. JWG has been subject to Court action for the purpose of intimidating JWG from exercising her opinion, and discrimination of practicing her faith. JWG is entitled to Equitable relief which includes:

declaratory relief - (rulings by another judge in the form of opinions establishing the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of another judges actions.)

injunctive relief - a command or order to do something or refrain from doing so.

73

Judges can be held liable for money damages for acts done in the exercise of his judicial function, within the limits of his jurisdiction, when erroneous, illegal or malicious acts - decisions have held that if an inferior judge acts maliciously or corruptly he may incur liability. Kalb v. Luce, 291 N.W. 841, 234, WISC 509. Federal Civil Rights statutes, and possibly Bivens actions, appear to offer the best path for redressing constitutional grievances with state and federal judges, respectively, in Federal Court. As a practical matter, such cases will usually be brought by pro se litigants. However, lawyers who do successfully sue state judges in federal court in Title 42 U.S. Code 1983 cases can recover attorney's fees from judicial defendants provided they can show time sheets kept contemporaneously with their work. Read more about this at: https://www.facebook.com/valaw2010 http://www.scribd.com/VirginiaLaw http://judicialslavery.com/ http://valaw2010.blogspot.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ttFLhGwu0Xo You may need to copy the links - Somehow all the links I try to add have issues - hopefully the FBI will get this figured out sooner than later Link to Article with comments about this http://oldtownalexandria.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-virginia-is-forlovers-and-the-alexandria-waterfront-is-too Upcoming will be a chart with all documents and Scribd links to them due to problems with links not sure when it will be completed.
I solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of this document are true and correct
74

to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Respectfully submitted, /S/_________________________________ Janice Wolk Grenadier

75