Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman

Erika Grenadier Lewis

David Mark Grenadier

See Attached Page 2 14 Perjury, Fraud on the Court, Conversion and Theft of Real Estate starting
with Sonia Grenadier on or before November of 1983, Janice Wolk Grenadier from on or around
February 14, 1986

Documents, Accountings, Deed, Trust agreements, Copies of Checks, Letters, Outlines of Property,
Deed of Trust, Partnership agreement, Divorce Degree with no Property Settlement, Documents filed
in the court that are riddled with lies by lawyer Ilona and her lawyers, A Liquidation Agreement done
without Janices signature by a lawyer not licensed in Virginia.

Criminal Complaint against Divorce Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman and Erika Ely Grenadier Lewis of California /
daughter to Ilona Grenadier who in or around February 4, 1985 with Ilonas first lie about Bristow Road and the money she stole our
of the property by all appearance as well as the property from Sonia Grenadier mother to the late Judge Albert Grenadier who had died
in or around March of 1985. Ilona then married Jerome Jerry Heckman Alberts much hated 1st cousin Founding partner of
KellerHeckman an International law firm. Erika became involved in the collusion documented on or around November of 1997.

Date

Court

October 5, 1999

City of Alexandria

CH99-1253

April 20, 2001

10-11-2011
10-20-2011

City of Alexandria
City of Alexandria
USDC of Virginia

01-31-2014

USDC of District
of Columbia
USDC of District
of Columbia
USDC of Virginia

CH01 - 0654
M011001482
1:11-cv-01136 GBL
- JFA
1:14-cv-00162

07-29-2013
07-02-2014
04-30-2014
03-13-014
09-15-2015

City of Alexandria
Prince William
County
City of Alexandria

11-12-2015

USDC of Virginia

Case No.

Description
Divorce Janice Wolk Grenadier
David Grenadier Divorce Granted with no Property
Settlement agreement
The Money owed for the Bellefonte Partnership
Grand Jury

LLM Loreta Lax Miller

1;13-cv-01152 UNA

Spring Street

1:14-cv-00827 LMBTCB
CL 1400 - 2193
CL 1400 2185
& 1400 2185-01
CL1500 - 3661

Spring Street Stayed as of September 29, 2016 in the 4th

Circuit under an En Banc accepted
Lis Pendens
Lis Pendens

1:15-cv- 01497 GBL

- IDD

Illegally brought suit for Legal fees that were gotten through
FRAUD ON THE COURT
Rico & Racketeering Stayed as of September 29, 2016 the
4th Circuit under an En Banc accepted

The following links will confirm the criminal Activity and how it has been ignored:
JWG Links Video Update October 28, 2016
June 22, 2016 Janice Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria VA - exposing the corruption - Judge
James Clark states he and Carter Land were Trustee's on all of Burke and Herbert Loans for
Friendship as he did on June 8, 2016. That Judge Clark further stated no financial compensation
from Burke and Herbert band directly or indirectly. Which must mean the lawyer representing Burke
& Herbert from his law firm would have had to do it for free - "friendship" still illegal. Janice states this
is a "Shame Hearing" - Judge Clark States - "Not on this side" since when does Judge's take sides?

https://youtu.be/Lo5U4FrvdwI
In May of 2016 learned that Judge Clark had a financial relationship - I contacted the FBI and here is
the conversation with the FBI that has ignored it:

https://youtu.be/DbdcVaZkItQ
These two videos show that I spoke with Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Brian Moran and showed him my
Box of evidence that

https://youtu.be/kQ1hRnaxvRc
https://youtu.be/JevLlGOtQBE
Janice Exposes the Corruption of the City of Alexandria Nazi Virginia the place Terrorist's can Buy
$$$$ Justice

https://youtube.com/watch?v=qhBZLmVynXc
Janice Wolk Grenadier asking / exposing Mark Warner for the 3rd time having the discussion
he lied.
DSCF0005 - Jailed so Senator Mark Warner could be Re-elected and
https://youtu.be/rRs7cBEYAjQ
DSCF0039 Mark Warner Exposed as he Lies about what he knows - YouTube
https://youtu.be/O10opcNIqNA

These Videos are the tapes of Janice Wolk Grenadier Standing UP and speaking out at the City of
Alexandria Council Meeting

June 2016 COA Council Meeting

https://youtu.be/MXa5aVqLPPI

COA June 18,2016 Council Meeting exposing Judge James Clark

June 2016 Burke & Herbert Bank - Lying to me about the subpoena and that he had no idea I was to
come today after I had already had a conversation with another person there.
https://youtu.be/gisnNjOgVk0

October 2016 City Council Meeting further exposing the corruption in the City of Alexandria
https://youtu.be/vNKZD4a_6Fw
October 2016 - City of Alexandria Council Meeting - These two tapes show the Financial Questionable
activity
https://youtu.be/GaNI8TEzWLM
and
The disclosure of the City Corruption in the finances - Private School $70,000 - for tennis courts - COA funded
$400,000 for tennis courts - the City Paid $1.6 Million
September 2016 City Council Meeting https://youtu.be/7rSIZ2oTh7A
Right with Crime - CSPAN Talking about the Corruption with Judges https://youtu.be/lYM6ULrTfM0
CATO - Judge Merrick Garland

https://youtu.be/lVIUoBWr2vQ

February 2016 - The $602,000 SCAM of the JIRC https://youtu.be/poQ6uHhSLXM

DSCF0008 - The Mortgage Crisis - Eric Holder Eric Holder and the SCAM on the American People

https://youtu.be/GjaZ6a--aRM
DSCF0042 City of Alexandria Council Meeting January 2016 - YouTube
3

https://youtu.be/IZGoo4Bov1o

DSCF0047 City of Alexandria City Council Meeting December 2015 - YouTube

https://youtu.be/yd9qz2ukExE

DSCF0048 City of Alexandria Council Meeting November 2015 - YouTube

https://youtu.be/OmJWgr_qf28

DSCF0050 City of Alexandria Council Meeting October 2015 - YouTube

https://youtu.be/cqj5DcHGS3c

DSCF0051 City of Alexandria Council Meeting September 2015 - YouTube

https://youtu.be/qGavoOLEcRY

DSCF0055 City of Alexandria Council Meeting June 2015 - YouTube

https://youtu.be/2qAc_YqdVUw

DSCF0056 City of Alexandria Council Meeting May 2015 - YouTube

https://youtu.be/2qAc_YqdVUw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poQ6uHhSLXM City of Alexandria $602,000 Scam Council

Meeting Feb 2016 - https://youtu.be/poQ6uHhSLXM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDZ8UkJv78I Cato Question where to go for Help with Sydney
Powell Licensed to Lie - On July 25, 2014 Janice Wolk Grenadier asked "Where do you go for help
when your Due Process rights as an American Citizen are violated?" You will be shocked by the
answer
https://youtu.be/GDZ8UkJv78I
We send young men and women into harms way to fight for rights that we no longer have as
American Citizens. It is very scary and until you are involved in a Slippery Slope of the Collusion and
Corruption of the Judicial System - it is difficult to understand.
The entire event can be heard at http://cdn.cato.org/archive-2014/cbf-...

Read more at:

JAMJustice.org
www.ProSeAmerica.net
@ProSeAm
Facebook.com/JAMJustice1
Facebook.com/jwgrenadier3
Facebook.com/ProSeAmerica
Facebook.com/PSA-Your State Name
www.ProSeAmerica.blogspot.com
That the law is very clear: That Judge Clarks actions have turned back time. Giving me less rights then a slave. Taking
someone under Title 42 US Code 1994 and Title 18 US Code 1581(a): Whoever holds or returns any person to a
condition of PEONAGE, shall be fined under this title for imprisoned not more than 20 years or both. That on October

22, 2014 I was placed in jail for failure to pay legal fees in 30 days which is a violation of my Thirteenth Amendment
"Neither Slavery not involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime where of the party shall have duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any subject to their Jurisdiction". Furthermore the right by placing me
"under" a state Peonage / Involuntary Servitude violating the Fourth Amendment right by malicious prosecution, false
imprisonment and unconstitutional arrest. This violation of my Eight Amendment Right as to Excessive Bail which in this
case constitutes "Restitution Bail" which further shows the knowledgeable malicious intent to silence me till the election
was over on November 4th. 2014. Bias, Retaliation and Retribution to further line the Lawyers pockets by Judge Clark.
Further: The system is one where the Lawyers and Judges have set it up to protect each other and line each others
pockets with Cash.
December 2015 Defendant Janice Wolk Grenadier Stands up and speaks out against the Criminal Acts of Judge Nolan
Dawkins in Regard to his re-appointment - In front of the Courts of Justice in the Virginia Legislature Several other
Victims also stood up and spoke out about the criminal actions of other Virginia Judges Courts of Justice A group of
Elected Officials / Lawyers who practice in front of these Judges
VOTED ALL JUDGES BACK INTO THERE POSITIONS KNOWING THE CRIMINAL ACTS & ACTIONS OF THE JUDGES
The Professional Code of Responsibility of the Lawyers on the Courts of Justice Rule 8.4 Misconduct It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do
so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness to practice law;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on
the lawyers fitness to practice law;
The Courts of Justice further GUARANTEES THE JUDGES against complaints being investigated by HAND
SELECTING THE JIRC ( The Judicial Inquiry and Review Committee where complaints are filed against Judges
and never investigated Read More at www.proseamerica.blogspot.com the $602,000. SCAM on the
Virginia Citizens
Guaranteeing all Judges the ability to ignore the law and rule to protect their own and as Judge Clark
stated very clearly to his good friend Attorney Michael Weiser
I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET HER OUT OF JAIL, I AM SO SORRY I CANNOT COLLECT YOUR LEGAL FEES FOR
YOU
The Appearance and the collusion is that all Judges in the State of Virginia have a Secret Handshake of
You Scratch my Back, I will line you pockets with WINS in the court room for your Clients Call me Buy
me Lunch or Dinner or what ever but, we will not turn on our own
So what about those young Men and Women who go off to war to fight for the Rights our Constitution
Gives Americans of Due Process?
www.VaLaw2010.blogspot.com
www.Scribd.com/VirginiaLaw
Rico Information: Complaint:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/303506666/RicoRaci-2-v-4-FINAL-JWG-v Complaint-October-17-2015

Documents the Back up the Claims:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/303508177/USDC-VA-Exhibits-for-Rico-Rackering-Jan-6-2015
This picture / email says it all:

Law / Code

Description

Bill of Rights

United States
Constitution

1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of worship
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear
Amendment I
[Religion, Speech, Press,
Assembly, Petition (1791)]
(see explanation)

Amendment IV

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression,

assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting
one religion over others and also restricting an individuals religious
practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from
restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also
guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their
government
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but up on probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that each mans home
is his castle, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by
the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the
law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps,
and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal
law topics and to privacy law

Fifth Amendment [Grand Jury, Double

Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due
Process (1791)] (see explanation

The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal
proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand
jury, forbids double jeopardy, and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires
that due process of law be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen life, liberty or

VI
Sixth Amendment [Criminal Prosecutions
- Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to
Counsel (1791)] (see explanation
VII
Seventh Amendment [Common Law
Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]
(see explanation

VIII
Eighth Amendment [Excess Bail or
Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
(1791)] (see explanation

IX
Ninth Amendment [Non-Enumerated
Rights (1791)] (see explanation)

X
Tenth Amendment [Rights Reserved to
States or People (1791)]
(see explanation

property and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private
property for public use
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right
to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial
jury, and the right to know who your accusers areand the nature of the charges and
evidence against you. It has been most visibly tested in a series of cases involving
terrorism, but much more often figures in cases that involve (for example) jury selection
or the protection of witnesses, including victims of sex crimes as well as witnesses in
need of protection from retaliation
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.
The Seventh Amendment continues a practice from English common law of
distinguishing civil claims which must be tried before a jury (absent waiver by the
parties) from claims and issues that may be heard by a judge alone. It only
governs federal civil courts and has no application to civil courts set up by the
states when those courts are hearing only disputes of state law
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
Most often mentioned in the context of the death penalty, the Eighth Amendment
prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, but also mentions excessive fines
and bail. The excessive fines clause surfaces (among other places) in cases of civil
and criminal forfeiture, for example when property is seized during a drug raid.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain ri ghts, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Ninth Amendment was James Madisons attempt to ensure that the Bill of
Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific
rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence
of such unenumerated rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
The Tenth Amendment helps to define the concept of federalism, the relationship
between Federal and state governments. As Federal activity has increased, so too has
the problem of reconciling state and national interests as they apply to the Federal
powers to tax, to police, and to regulations such as wage and hour laws, disclosure of
personal information in recordkeeping systems, and laws related to strip-mining.

Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Civil Rights

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction.

Enforcement Power

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of
citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the
amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide
variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial
discrimination), Roe v. Wade(reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election
recounts),Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v.
Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they
reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each
state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the
choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the
members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such
state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way
abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation
therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall
bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector
of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United
States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature,
or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds
of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United
States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or
emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held
illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions of this article.

Virginia
Constitutional Rights

Virginia Article I. Bill of Rights A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign
powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
Section 1. Equality and rights of men. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of
which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and
liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section 2. People the source of power. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their
trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
Section 3. Government instituted for common benefit. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection,
and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of
producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and,
whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable,
inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Section 4. No exclusive emoluments or privileges; offices not to be hereditary.
That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public
services; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.
Section 5. Separation of legislative, executive, and judicial departments; periodical elections.
That the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Commonwealth should be separate and distinct; and that the members thereof
may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a
private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by regular elections, in which all
or any part of the former members shall be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws may direct.
Section 6. Free elections; consent of governed. That all elections ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of
permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed, or deprived of, or
damaged in, their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives duly elected, or bound by any law to

which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good.
Section 7. Laws should not be suspended. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent
of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.
Section 8. Criminal prosecutions. That in criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to
be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, and to call for evidence in his favor, and he shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. He shall not be deprived of life or liberty,
except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, nor be compelled in any criminal proceeding to give evidence against himself, nor
be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
Laws may be enacted providing for the trial of offenses not felonious by a court not of record without a jury, preserving the right of the
accused to an appeal to and a trial by jury in some court of record having original criminal jurisdiction. Laws may also provide for juries
consisting of less than twelve, but not less than five, for the trial of offenses not felonious, and may classify such cases, and prescribe the
number of jurors for each class.
In criminal cases, the accused may plead guilty. If the accused plead not guilty, he may, with his consent
and the concurrence of the Commonwealth's Attorney and of the court entered of record, be tried by a smaller number of jurors, or waive a
jury. In case of such waiver or plea of guilty, the court shall try the case.
The provisions of this section shall be self-executing.
Section 8-A. Rights of victims of crime. That in criminal prosecutions, the victim shall be accorded fairness, dignity and respect by the
officers, employees and agents of the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions and officers of the courts and, as the General Assembly
may define and provide by law, may be accorded rights to reasonable and appropriate notice, information, restitution, protection, and access
to a meaningful role in the criminal justice process. These rights may include, but not be limited to, the following:

o
o
o
o
o
o
o

1. The right to protection from further harm or reprisal through the imposition of appropriate bail and conditions of release;
2. The right to be treated with respect, dignity and fairness at all stages of the criminal justice system;
3. The right to address the circuit court at the time sentence is imposed;
4. The right to receive timely notification of judicial proceedings;
5. The right to restitution;
6. The right to be advised of release from custody or escape of the offender, whether before or after disposition; and
7. The right to confer with the prosecution.
This section does not confer upon any person a right to appeal or modify any decision in a criminal proceeding, does not abridge any other
right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or this Constitution, and does not create any cause of action for compensation or
damages against the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions, any officer, employee or agent of the Commonwealth or any of its
political subdivisions, or any officer of the court.
The amendment ratified November 5, 1996 and effective January 1, 1997Added a new section (8-A).
Section 9. Prohibition of excessive bail and fines, cruel and unusual punishment, suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and
ex post facto laws.
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; that the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of invasion or rebellion, the public safety may require; and that the
General Assembly shall not pass any bill of attainder, or any ex post facto law.
Section 10. General warrants of search or seizure prohibited. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be
commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense
is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.
Section 11. Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking or damaging of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial
in civil cases. That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall
not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts; and that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of
religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be
considered discrimination.
That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held
sacred. The General Assembly may limit the number of jurors for civil cases in courts of record to not less than five.
That the General Assembly shall pass no law whereby private property, the right to which is fundamental, shall be damaged or taken except
for public use. No private property shall be damaged or taken for public use without just compensation to the owner thereof. No more private
property may be taken than necessary to achieve the stated public use. Just compensation shall be no less than the value of the property
taken, lost profits and lost access, and damages to the residue caused by the taking. The terms "lost profits" and "lost access" are to be
defined by the General Assembly. A public service company, public service corporation, or railroad exercises the power of eminent domain
for public use when such exercise is for the authorized provision of utility, common carrier, or railroad services. In all other cases, a taking
or damaging of private property is not for public use if the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs,
increasing tax revenue, or economic development, except for the elimination of a public nuisance existing on the property. The condemnor
bears the burden of proving that the use is public, without a presumption that it is.
The amendment ratified November 6, 2012, and effective January 1, 2013In the heading of the section, after "taking", added "or
damaging". In paragraph one, after "contracts", deleted ", nor any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses,
without just compensation, the term 'public uses' to be defined by the General Assembly". Added a new paragraph after paragraph two.
Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition. That the freedoms of speech and of the
press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely
speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not
pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

government for the redress of grievances.

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should
be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Section 14. Government should be uniform. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government
separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
Section 15. Qualities necessary to preservation of free government. That no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be
preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; by frequent recurrence to
fundamental principles; and by the recognition by all citizens that they have duties as well as rights, and that such rights cannot be enjoyed
save in a society where law is respected and due process is observed.
That free government rests, as does all progress, upon the broadest possible diffusion of knowledge, and that the Commonwealth should avail
itself of those talents which nature has sown so liberally among its people by assuring the opportunity for their fullest development by an
effective system of education throughout the Commonwealth.
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political
subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried
individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its
political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits,
obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007Added a new section (15-A).
Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion. That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the
manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled
to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance,
love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever,
nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions
or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise
diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any
peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people
of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship,
or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his
support such private contract as he shall please.

Section 17. Construction of the Bill of Rights.

the people not therein expressed.

The rights enumerated in this Bill of Rights shall not be construed to limit other rights of

10

INTENTIONAL
FRAUDLENT
TRANSFER AND
REVCOVERY OF
MONEY AND
REAL ESTATE

The evidence is well documented which often you have to rely on circumstantial evidence of fraud. To prove actual intent,
the courts have developed badges of fraud, which, while not conclusive, are considered by the courts as circumstantial
evidence of fraud:[citation needed]
Becoming insolvent because of the transfer;
Lack or inadequacy of consideration;
Family, or insider relationship among parties;
The retention of possession, benefits or use of property in question;
The existence of the threat of litigation;
The financial situation of the debtor at the time of transfer or after transfer;
The existence or a cumulative effect of a series of transactions after the onset of debtors financial difficulties;
The general chronology of events;
The secrecy of the transaction in question; and
Deviation from the usual method or course of business.
That the documents meet the above requirements of FRAUD by Divorce lawyer Ilona Grenadier et al

CONSTRUCTIVE
FRAUDULENT
TRANSFER OF
REAL ESTATE

That the Sale of Real Estate in the Chapter 7 was done by Fraud on the Court by Reed Smith. That the collusion with Ilona
Grenadier was to harm me, and leave me and my girls financially unstable she found willing partners in lawyers that were
forced on Janice by the courts.
That inefficient council / overpaid council can be proven that each and every lawyer know or should have known I had to
have a Property Settlement with my divorce.
That Burke and Herbert, Ilona Grenadier and others knew the Liquidation Agreement would not hold up in court as is shown
in the Bellefonte Property Deed when Ilona signed as if under duress for signing and stating after her signature she should not
have to sign due to the Liquidation Agreement.
The Liquidation agreement was signed after Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier and x-husband David Grenadier had by all
appearance hired a Hitman and pulled a gun in the home. That Ilona had given David in or around June of 1997 the advice
to move into the basement do things for the kids, none of Janices laundry, or allow her to eat what he had cooked to start
the separation. The Liquidation agreement was signed in November of 1997, when killing me didnt work.
Ilona would then in December aa a lawyer write up a separation agreement and a property settlement that she wanted me to
sign I refused and no property settlement was ever done.

CONVERSION

That Janice never legally gave up her property rights. Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman in a pattern and practice
that started with Sonia Grenadier sold property / conveyed property to her daughter Erika Lewis illegally and behind Janices
back.
The Scheme to steal from Janice began in or around December of 1986 with the lie about not having enough money for GIC
portion of down payment and closing costs.
That with the conversion of Real Estate in the Liquidation agreement then the sale of it in collusion with Burke & Herbert
Bank using sale proceeds by all appearance to further invest in California and other places.
That Divorce Lawyer did not have to act criminally she did so voluntarily and with knowledgeable intend.

COLLUSION

That the Collusion of David Mark Grenadier, Burke and Herbert Bank, Land Carroll Blair, DiMuro Ginsberg, Michael
Weiser Esq, Judge Haddock, Judge McGrath, Judge Kemler, Judge Dawkins the Prince William County Judges, Judge Potter,
this court have colluded and worked hand in hand in the GANG RAPE of Janice Wolk Grenadier to enrich and do the illegal
and criminal dealing of Divorce Lawyer Ilona.
That Taylor Burke / Burke and Herbert when he was in July of 1997 was under investigation by all appearance worked with
Ilona to squash Janice to repair his standing with the FDIC.
That the Judiciary, the Government and Elected Officials are as a pattern and practice selling Justice to the highest bidder
ignoring the United States Constitution, the Law and Rules of the Supreme Court who is Empowering them to do so.

MALISCIOUS
PROSECUTION,
OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE

That Bankruptcy Lawyers, Judges, Ben DiMuro, Michael Weiser, Ilona Grenadier Heckman, Andrea Mosley, Hillary
Collyer, Ann Schmidt, John Tran et al all lied in court, lied in court documents which was pointed out to the court that
ignored it.
That the Judges to date of allowed Fraud on the Court by lawyers to maliciously cause unnecessary pain and suffering of
Janice to line their friends pockets or as Judge Clark did for friendship/

11

Justice was Obstructed when every subpoena for information was denied Janice. That the more Janice exposed the TRUTH
and the collusion of all the more harm came to Janice.
That the changing of dockets, the mailing back of evidence shows a pattern and practice of Obstruction of Justice to further
line the pockets of FRIENDS Bankers, Lawyers and Judges.
October 2012 Janices documents submitted into the record, when she went to check that they had been filed she is told
to take them or they would throw them out, Janice refused to take them and then they are mailed back to her by Judges
Kemler, Dawkins and Clark. The box about 4 thick has been x-rayed and shows the documents but, never opened still In the
box

The most recent case for legal fees was malicious and illegal. All legal fees awarded where VOID due to Fraud on the
court. Legal fees were in Orders and as Judge Clark stated very clearly after Illegally jailing Janice and having her
TORTURED in jail to his best friend Michael Weiser I am so sorry I cannot collect your legal fees I have to let her out of
jail you will have to come back and get a not different then CASH for KIDS in Pennsylvania where Judges went to
jail. CASH for LAWYERS is just as illegal.

ALTER EGO

That throughout the years starting in 1993 (this was right after David for the first time stated he wanted a divorce) Ilona
would start moving the properties in and out of Trusts under different names. She would take control of how the properties
could be used. That in doing so she was the alter ego of the trusts. This resulted in personal unjust enrichment, fraud and
harming the other partners with knowledgeable intend

VIOLATIONS OF
THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF
187 (42 USC
1983. 1985, 1986)

That Ilonas hate of Catholics was made clear in or around May of 2008 when she stated very clearly Me and My family had
nothing to do with your children because you raised them Catholic the hate is proven in her collusion with Loretta Lax
Miller in the blog jwgrenadierisalair.blogspot.com that is down with a new one that went up as I got out of jail.

RACKETEERING
AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS
ACT OF 1970
( 18 USC 1962)

That the criminal enterprise of the Judiciary to harm those that do not have the money or use lawyers that are not friends of
the Judges is sick. That the facts, the documents show

That the rights of Janice in the courts were denied to her for being Blacked Balled by the Old Boys Network order by all
appearance by Judge Donald Kent and Judge Donald Haddock.

That the Judiciary, the Government and Elected officials have created a You scratch my back I will scratch your back or
you buy me breakfast, lunch, dinner a weekend getaway I will rule in your favor. Being the x-wife of a son of a Judge
Judges at events et al I have seen this behavior first hand. I have now lived the other side at the mercy of these men and
women who have done whatever they can to silence me. By the grace of God I am still alive. RIP Nancy Dunning et al that
were not so lucky.

December / January time frame of 2012 & 2013 Lawyer Ilona in collusion with others as a favor or hired
a gentleman that goes by the name of Mark Stuart who informs Janice he was to drug Janice and get sexual inappropriate
pictures of Janice, or to rape one of Janices daughters, or to plant drugs on Janices daughter or in the home to give Circuit
Court Judges Kemler, Dawkins and Clark, information to make JWG incompetent to file any other documents. Mr. Stuart
said the Lawyer Ilona will go to any length to harm Janice or Janices daughters. That Lawyer Ilona will continue to do what
she can to distract Janice from becoming successful and moving on with Janices life. That Lawyer Ilona is a Greedy Jew
that all Lawyer Ilonas actions are deliberate to cause harm to Janice. When the Alexandria Police were called they
informed Janice they were instructed by Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel to not take any reports of issue.

LIBAL AND
SLANDER

That when Ilona acting in collusion on her and her friends blog lied stating I was the anti-Christ a homosexual while
trying to sell a family friendly product My Pillow Pack further harmed me with their lies.
That Ilona and her lawyers lied in court, in court documents slandering the truth and me defaming me

FALSE
IMPRISIMENT

Judge James Clark illegally Jails Plaintiff: That Judge Clarks actions turned back time. Giving me less rights then a
slave. Taking someone under Title 42 US Code 1994 and Title 18 US Code 1581(a): Whoever holds or returns any
person to a condition of PEONAGE, shall be fined under this title for imprisoned not more than 20 years or both. That on

12

October 22, 2014 Janice was placed in jail for failure to pay legal fees in 30 days which is a violation of my Thirteenth
Amendment "Neither Slavery not involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime where of the party shall have duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any subject to their Jurisdiction". Furthermore the right by placing me
"under" a state Peonage / Involuntary Servitude violating the Fourth Amendment right by malicious prosecution, false
imprisonment and unconstitutional arrest. This violation of my Eight Amendment Right as to Excessive Bail which in this
case constitutes "Restitution Bail" which further shows the knowledgeable malicious intent to silence me till the election was
over on November 4th. 2014. Bias, Retaliation and Retribution to further line the Lawyers pockets by Judge Clark.
That on November 12, 2014 when Judge James Clark was forced to release Janice early from jail he turned to his
BEST FRIEND lawyer Michael Weiser and stated very clearly I am so sorry I have to let her out of Jail, I cannot
collect your legal fees for you YOU will have to come back to get a Judgment to date no such Judgment has been
filed for.
By all appearance it was through the ORDERS of Judge James Clark Janice was to be tortured in the City of
Alexandria jail.
That in CASE NO. 1500-3661 filed by Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman for legal fees that are not
Judgements Judge James Clark has personally in Judges Chambers chosen a Trustee, not giving Plaintiff any
Discovery to show the TRUTH

TURNOVER OF
PROPERTY SOLD
/ AND OR STILL
COLLECTING
RENTS AS
TRUSTEE

That the appearance is in 1983 from documentation that Janice has Ilona became Trustee and is still collect rents et al. That
Ilona is using profits and rents for by all appearance other Real Estate or personal use / use by Erika Lewis her daughter et al.

FRAUD ON THE
COURT BY
LAWYERS AND
JUDGES

That the evidence and the orders themselves by Judge clearly show FRAUD ON THE COURT. That the willingness of
Judges to protect them own is clearly in the Orders and the acts and actions. .In e-mails that accidently I was included in
between lawyers Do we have to respond or will Judge Clark just take care of it. Lawyers do not have to respond to the
Appeals Court or the Supreme Court of Virginia Judges have agreed to further RAPE JANCIE to take care of their own.
The machinery of the court is broken, corrupt an enterprise to protect their own.
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is
directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or
perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not
performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."

Honest Services
Fraud 18 USC
1961

The Scheme is Systemic denial of honest services of the court system, while perpetrating a kickback scheme to gain favor
with others, or financial gain. To be seen as a game player with the Old Boys Network with the hope of pay raises, bonus
and the payments towards dinners, parties, portraits or whatever the Judge may request of the lawyers which give the
appearance of bribery.

These are the Professional Code of Ethics that Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman has violated and been
ignored by the Virginia State Bar with the help of Ethics Head James M. McCauley ( Adjunct Professor to the
University of Richmond)

Professional Code of Ethics

The following and possible others have been Violated thru the Misconduct of Divorce Lawyer Ilona
Grenadier Heckman and many others
Rule 1. 2 Scope of Representation
(a) A Lawyer shall abide by a clients decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject ot paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), and shall consult with the
client as to the means by which tey are to be pursued.
That in the Scheme of stealing from Janice Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier acted as Janice lawyer and when asked for her documents and a NOTE for
money that was manipulated out of Janice through lies on or around July 6, 1990 for money by Divorce Lawyers own admission in May of 2008 that it
was not David Grenadier who stole such money only leaving Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman to steal from the Sonia Grenadier Trust through
her law firm.

13

Rule 1.3 Diligence

(a)A lawyer shall not with reasonable diligent and promptness in representing a client
(b)A lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but may withdraw as permitted under
Rule 1.16
(c)A lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage a client during the course of the professional relationship Divorce Lawyer Ilona harmed Janice in several
criminal acts to cover up her and her law firms stealing from the Sonia Grenadier Trust account
Rule 1.4 Communication Divorce lawyer and other lawyers lied as a pattern and practice Divorce Lawyer Ilona behind the back of Client Janice in the Sonia
Grenadier theft from her law office hid pertinent facts only recently learned. This facts were kept from Judge Grenadiers sister Ruth and her family as Ilona as a
pattern and practice stole from them using a forged trust agreement
(a)
(b)
(c)

A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information
A lawyer shall explain a matter to the client reasonably necessary to permit the client to informed decisions regarding the representation.
A lawyer shall inform the client of facts pertinent to the matter and of communications from another party that may significantly affect settlement or
resolution of the matter.

Rule 1.5 Fees

(a)

A lawyers fees shall be reasonable, The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following:
1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and he skill requisite to perform the legal service properly,
2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer
3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services
4) The amount involved and the results obtained:
5) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances,
6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client
7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services: and
8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent

(b)

A lawyers fee shall be adequately explained to the client

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information

(b)To the extent a lawyer reasonably believes necessary the lawyer may reveal:
(1) Such information to comply with the law or a court order
(3)Such information which clearly establishes that the client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated upon a third party, a FRAUD related to the
subject matter of the representation.
(c)

A lawyer shall promptly reveal:

(1) The intention of a client, as stated by the client, to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime, but before revealing such
information, the attorney shall where feasible, advise the client of the possible legal consequences of the action, urge the client not to commit the crime,
and advise the client that the attorney must reveal the clients criminal intention unless there upon abandoned, and, if the crime involves PERJURY by the
client, that the attorney shall see to withdraw as counsel:
(2) Information which clearly establishes that the client has, in the course of the representation perpetrated a FRAUD related to the subject matter of the
representation upon a tribunal. Before revealing such information, however, the lawyer shall request that the client advise the tribunal of the FRAUD.
For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (b)(3), information is clearly established when the client acknowledges to the attorney that the client
has perpetrated a FRAUD: or
(3) Information concerning the misconduct of another attorney to the appropriate professional authority under RULE 8.3. Where the information necessary
to report the misconduct is protected under this Rule, the attorney after consultation must obtain client consent. Consultation should include full
disclosure of all reasonably foreseeable consequences of both disclosure and non-disclosure to the client.

Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: General Rule - Ben DiMuro met with and represented Janice Wolk Grenadier in the overage of 404 E. Monroe Ave fire. That Janice
disclosed this to Ben DiMuro who by appearance believes that since he is a past President of the VSB and has donated 10% of his estate at the time of his death - he
has purchased the Justice to hold him above the law and anyone he represents.
Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman also believes she is above the law and
should as the Judges and Layers are willing to put their careers on the line to COVER UP her criminal acts and actions.
(a)

A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyers responsibilities to another client or to a third
person, or by the lawyers own interests, unless:

(2)
The lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(3)
The client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, he consultation shall include explanation of the
implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.
Rule 1.8 Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions
Rule 1.9 Conflict of Interest : Former Client Janice Wolk Grenadier was a former client of Ben DiMuro
(a)A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent antother person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that
persons interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless both the present and former client consent after consultation.
(b)A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associate had
previously represented a client.

14

Rule 1:10 Imputed Disqualification: General Rule

Rule 1;11 Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees
Rule 1.12 Former Judge or Arbitrator
Rule 1.13 Organization as Client
Rule 1.14 Client with Impairment
Rule 1.15 Safekeeping Property
(c) All funds received or held by a lawyer or law firm on behalf of a client, other than reimbursement of advances for costs and expense, shall be deposited in one or
more identifiable escrow accounts maintained at a financial institution in the state in which the law office is situated and no funds belonging to the lawyer or lw firm
shall be deposited therein except as follows:
(d)When the course of representation a lawyer is in POSSESESSION OF PROPERTY in which both the lawyer and another person claim interests, the property shall
be kept separate by the layer until there is an accounting and severance of their interests. If a dispute arises concerning their respective interest, the portion in dispute
shall be kept separate by the lawyer until the dispute is resolved. Divorce lawyer in July of 1990 manipulated Janice into loaning $30,000. to COVER UP her and her
law firms involvement in stealing from the Sonia Grenadier Trust - which Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier refused to turn over to Janice. That the lawyers
DiMuroGinsburg and Michael Weiser are in collusion with Judges to Cover UP these criminal acts and actions.
Rule 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
(b)

Except as stated in paragraph (c) a lawyer shall not represent a client or where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a
client if:
3). The lawyer is discharged. - DIVORCE LAWYER ILONA GRENADER acting as Janice lawyer in stealing $30.000. from her in a conversation on July
7, 1990 has refused to turn over NOTE. She stole the money to go into paying off money stolen through her law firm for GIC to purchase properties. Which
indirectly / directly shows Janice put more cash into GIC between this and money taken out of the Bellefonte Partnership then x-husband David Grenadier.

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(e)

A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Rule 3.4

Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;

Fail to disclose a fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client, subject to Rule 1.6:
Fail to disclose to the tribunal controlling legal authority in the subject jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be adverse to the position of the client and not
disclosed by opposing counsel: or
Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable
remedial measures.

Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(i) File a suit, initiate criminal charges, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it
is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS SUIT IS MALICIOUS TO HARM
JANICE AND HER GIRLS.
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statement to Others
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly
(a)
(b)

Make a false statement of fact or law; or

Fail to disclose a fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a CRIMINAL or FRAUDULENT act by a client

Rule 4.3 Dealing with Unrepresented Persons

Rule 4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Person
In representing a client a lawyer shall not use means that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence
that violate the legal rights of such a person.
Rule 5. 1 Responsibility
Rule 5.5 - Unauthorized Practice Of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law DIVORCE LAWYER ILONA GRENADIER HICKMAN USED A LAWYER NOT
LICESENDED IN VIRGINIA TO STEAL REAL ESTATE her actions have caused many homeowners in the City of Alexandria to have properties with Janice Wolk
Grenadier having ownership:
(c) A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.
(d) Foreign Lawyers:

15

(1) "Foreign Lawyer" is a person authorized to practice law by the duly constituted and authorized governmental body of any State or Territory of the United
States or the District of Columbia, or a foreign nation, but is neither licensed by the Supreme Court of Virginia or authorized under its rules to practice law
generally in the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction.
(2) A Foreign Lawyer shall not, except as authorized by these Rules or other law:
(i) establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in Virginia for the practice of law, which may occur even if the Foreign Lawyer is not
physically present in Virginia; or
(ii) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the Foreign Lawyer is admitted to practice law in Virginia.
(3) A Foreign Lawyer shall inform the client and interested third parties in writing:
(i) that the lawyer is not admitted to practice law in Virginia;
(ii) the jurisdiction(s) in which the lawyer is licensed to practice; and
(iii) the lawyers office address in the foreign jurisdiction.
(4) A Foreign Lawyer may, after informing the client as required in 3(i)-(iii) above, provide legal services on a temporary and occasional basis in Virginia that:
(i) are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice without limitation in Virginia or admitted under Part I of Rule 1A:5 of this Court and
who actively participates in the matter;
(ii) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding before a tribunal in Virginia or another jurisdiction, if the Foreign Lawyer, or a person
the Foreign Lawyer is assisting, is authorized by law or order to appear in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized;
(iii) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in Virginia or another
jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the Foreign Lawyers practice in a jurisdiction in which the Foreign Lawyer is admitted to
practice and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or
(iv) are not within paragraphs (4)(ii) or (4)(iii) and arise out of or are reasonably related to the representation of a client by the Foreign Lawyer in a
jurisdiction in which the Foreign Lawyer is admitted to practice or, subject to the foregoing limitations, are governed primarily by international law.
(5) A foreign legal consultant practicing under Rule 1A:7 of this Court and a corporate counsel registrant practicing under Part II of Rule 1A:5 of this Court
are not authorized to practice under this rule.
Rule 5.6 Restrictions On Right To Practice
A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making:
(a) a partnership or employment agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning
benefits upon retirement; or
(b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a controversy, except where such a restriction is approved by
a tribunal or a governmental entity.
Rule 6.3 Membership In Legal Services Organization
A lawyer may serve as a director, officer or member of a legal services organization, apart from the law firm in which the lawyer practices, notwithstanding that the
organization serves persons having interests adverse to a client of the lawyer. The lawyer shall not knowingly participate in a decision or action of the organization:
(a) if participating in the decision or action would be incompatible with the lawyer's obligations to a client under Rule 1.7; or
(b) where the decision or action could have a material adverse effect on the representation of a client of the organization whose interests are adverse to a client
of the lawyer.
Rule 6.4 Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests
ABA Model Rule not adopted.
Rule 6.5
Nonprofit And Court-Annexed Limited Legal Services Programs
(a) A lawyer who, under the auspices of a program sponsored by a nonprofit organization or court, provides short-term limited legal services to a client without
expectation by either the lawyer or the client that the lawyer will provide continuing representation in the matter:

o
o

(1) is subject to Rules 1.7 and 1.9(a) only if the lawyer knows that the representation of the client involves a conflict of interest; and
(2) is subject to Rule 1.10 only if the lawyer knows that another lawyer associated with the lawyer in a law firm is disqualified by Rule 1.7 or 1.9(a) with respect
to the matter.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2), Rule 1.10 is inapplicable to a representation governed by this Rule.

Rules 7.1 - 7.6 - Information About Legal Services

Rule 7.1 Communications Concerning A Lawyer's Services
(a) A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyers services. A communication is false or misleading if it

16

contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact when omission of such fact makes the statement materially false or misleading as a whole.
(b) A communication violates this rule if it advertises specific or cumulative case results, without a disclaimer that (i) puts the case results in a context that is
not misleading; (ii) states that case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case; and (iii) further states that case results do not guarantee or
predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by the lawyer. The disclaimer shall precede the communication of the case results. When the
communication is in writing, the disclaimer shall be in bold type face and uppercase letters in a font size that is at least as large as the largest text used to
advertise the specific or cumulative case results and in the same color and against the same colored background as the text used to advertise the specific or
cumulative case results.
(c) Any advertising pursuant to this Rule shall include the name and office address of at least one lawyer responsible for its content; or, in the alternative, a law
firm may file with the Virginia State Bar a current written statement identifying the lawyer responsible for the law firms advertising and its office address. The
law firm shall promptly update the written statement if there is any change in status.
(d) A lawyer shall timely respond to and fully cooperate with any requests for information by Ethics Counsel regarding the lawyers advertising.
Rule 7.3 Direct Contact With Potential Clients
(a) A lawyer shall not solicit employment from a potential client if:
(1) the potential client has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or
(2) the solicitation involves harassment, undue influence, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats or unwarranted promises of benefits.
(b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyers services except that a lawyer may:
(1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule and Rule 7.1;
(2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit qualified lawyer referral service;
(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17; and
(4) give nominal gifts of gratitude that are neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for recommending a lawyers services.
(c) Every written, recorded or electronic communication from a lawyer soliciting professional employment from a potential client known to be in need of legal
services in a particular matter shall conspicuously display the words ADVERTISING MATERIAL on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and
ending of any recorded or electronic communication, unless the recipient of the communication:
(1) is a lawyer; or
(2) has a familial, personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer; or
(3) is one who has had prior contact with the lawyer.
Rule 7.4 Communication Of Fields Of Practice And Certification
Lawyers may state, announce or hold themselves out as limiting their practice in a particular area or field of law so long as the communication of such limitation of
practice is in accordance with the standards of this Rule, Rule 7.1 and Rule 7.3, as appropriate. A lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer has been recognized
or certified as a specialist in a particular field of law except as follows:
(a) A lawyer admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation "Patent Attorney" or a substantially
similar designation;
(b) A lawyer engaged in Admiralty practice may use as a designation "Admiralty," "Proctor in Admiralty" or a substantially similar designation;
(c) A lawyer who has been certified by the Supreme Court of Virginia as a specialist in some capacity may use the designation of being so certified, e.g., "certified
mediator" or a substantially similar designation;
(d) A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer has been certified as a specialist in a field of law by a named organization, provided that the communication
clearly states that there is no procedure in the Commonwealth of Virginia for approving certifying organizations.

Rule 7.6 Political Contributions to Obtain Legal Engagements or Appointments by Judges

Rules 8.1 - 8.5 - Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession
Rule 8.1 Bar Admission And Disciplinary Matters
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer already admitted to the bar, in connection with a bar admission application, any certification required to be filed as
a condition of maintaining or renewing a license to practice law, or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not:
(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact;
(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter;
(c) fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of
information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6; or

17

(d) obstruct a lawful investigation by an admissions or disciplinary authority.

Rule 8.2 Judicial Officials

A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a
judge or other judicial officer. For all lawyers Ilona Grenadier Heckman, Ben DiMuro, Michael Weiser, Judge John Tran , Hillary Collyer , Andrea Mosley False
Statements have been a pattern and practice in the City of Alexandria Court documents, in court and to the Supreme Court of Virginia

Rule 8.3 Reporting Misconduct

(a) A lawyer having reliable information that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question
as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) A lawyer having reliable information that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to
the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
(c) If a lawyer serving as a third party neutral receives reliable information during the dispute resolution process that another lawyer has engaged in
misconduct which the lawyer would otherwise be required to report but for its confidential nature, the lawyer shall attempt to obtain the parties' written
agreement to waive confidentiality and permit disclosure of such information to the appropriate professional authority.
(d) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer or judge who is a member of an
approved lawyer's assistance program, or who is a trained intervenor or volunteer for such a program or committee, or who is otherwise cooperating in a
particular assistance effort, when such information is obtained for the purposes of fulfilling the recognized objectives of the program.
(e) A lawyer shall inform the Virginia State Bar if:

(1) the lawyer has been disciplined by a state or federal disciplinary authority, agency or court in any state, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia, for a
violation of rules of professional conduct in that jurisdiction;

o
o

(2) the lawyer has been convicted of a felony in a state, U.S. territory, District of Columbia, or federal court ;
(3) the lawyer has been convicted of either a crime involving theft, fraud, extortion, bribery or perjury, or an attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit any
of the foregoing offenses, in a state, U.S. territory, District of Columbia, or federal court. The reporting required by paragraph (e) of this Rule shall be made in
writing to the Clerk of the Disciplinary System of the Virginia State Bar not later than 60 days following entry of any final order or judgment of conviction or

discipline.
Rule 8.4 Misconduct That the lawyers with the Judges have had ex-parte communications to work in concert in court, in all Orders as Judge James Clark tells the
opposing side Write up what ever you want and I will sign it
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyers fitness to practice law;
(d) state or imply an ability to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official; or
(e) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

18