Janice Wolk Grenadier

15 West Spring Street

Alexandria Virginia 22301
202-468-7178
jwgrenadier@gmail.com
December 3, 2015
Hon. Lisa Bondareff Kemler, Chief Judge
City of Alexandria Circuit Court
520 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(703)
RE: Bellefonte Ave
Case No.CH 010654 Judge Donald Haddock choosing all Judges for LOVE
Grand Jury
Case No. MO1100 1482 Denied Access w/ witness KIDKNAPPED other Courtroom
COA Gutter and RV Case No. GV 12-3028 Retribution & Retaliation by this Court and COA
Divorce
Case No. 99-1253 No Property Settlement
Les Pendens
Case No. CL 1400- 2193
Ilona Grenadier - Foreclose on 15 W. Spring Street/ for illegally gotten legal fees Case No. 15 - 003661
USDC of the District of Columbia to Move IEG Foreclose case due to Hate Crime in COA 1:15 mc-01540
Dear Chief Judge Bondareff Kemler:
This letter is to inform you of an abominable injustice that is going on under your supervision done with
knowledgeable and criminal intent by the Court. That I come to you with great sadness and as a last resort
before I am sure the FBI / DOJ will be coming next if this is not resolved. That I have ignored your
involvement because of your father and what a great Doctor and man he is, and all he did for my girls. But, you
have proven not to be like your father and as a Jewish Judge that has ignored the law and acts and actions have
been and were with knowledgeable intend to harm me and my girls. That you, Judge Donald Haddock, Nolan
Dawkins and Judge James Clark have acted outside the law, empowering lawyers to come into your court room
to act outside the law to protect your own. That Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman and David
Grenadiers Criminal acts and actions are and still are a HATE crime that you have empowered and
empowered DiMuroGinsberg & Michael Weiser by allowing them to lie in court, lie in court documents et al.
That you and the other Judges have tampered with the Grand Jury, my documents submitted into the court room
and by all appearance involved in trying to physically harm me and my girls. How would you fee if someone
informed you that a Judge had ordered you to be found incompetent so a gentlemen was hired to drug you and
get inappropriate pictures, RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER, plant drugs on them or in your home. The appearance
is YOU were involved in this or at least empowered Judge James Clark, as you empowered him to
ILLEGALLY JAIL AND TOURTURE ME.
As the Chief Judge I come to you about under your supervision and your responsibility of the City of
Alexandria Circuit Court. I come to you for help as Ilona has filed a new suit as you and Nolan Dawkins have
in the past ignored or signed at different times that you were not going to hear the case and recused yourself,
but, by ignoring the fact that Judge James Clark has never had jurisdiction due to Bias, Retaliation, Retribution,
Favoritism, Cronyism and ruling for financial gain for others is are against the law in favoritism of Jewish
Lawyer Ilona, David Grenadier whom you went to Hebrew school my opponents and there lawyers.
That since 2007 when Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Hackman lied in court I have been persecuted in
this court the Circuit Court of Virginia in the City of Alexandria and Prince William County by several
1

Circuit Court Judges illegally chosen or illegal due bias et al, the USDC of the District of Columbia and the
USDC of the Eastern District of Virginia court. My opponent in this case is Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier
Heckman, David Grenadier and in some of the cases GIC, DiMuroGinsberg, Michael Weiser, Troutman Sanders
aka Mays and Valentine, Wells Fargo, the State of Virginia, the City of Alexandria et al. That the facts have
tied the corruption to my first issue Divorce Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman widow to the late
Judge Albert Grenadier and his 1st cousin Jerry Hackman founder of KellerHeckman an International Law Firm.
Both very powerful men in the Judiciary, Government and with Elected Officials who could just by there name
call in favors and a decision in the courts to favor her. In these cases in May of 2008 statements from Ilona
Grenadier in court changed everything:
1. Me and My family had nothing to do with you and your girls as you raised your girls Catholic ( This at
this point became a religious hate crime)
2. I dont believe David stole the money from Sonia Grenadier (which only left Ilona out of her law firm
and I have the documents to prove it, that she worked as the lawyer for David and myself lying to all
lawyers and everyone involved in the investigation)
3. About Judge Brown: He calls me all the time and I give him free Legal Advice you will never win
- which is bribery, conflict etc
Then in Chambers May of 2008 Judge Donald Haddock stated:
1. You can never win this we LOVE Ilona (Judge Haddock had from September of 2007 ignored
the law and picked all the Judges for FAVOR to ensure that Ilona won for his LOVE) That the Old
Boys Network has been doing everything it could to Murder me, have me commit suicide as they did
to Chris Mackney in Arlington.
I am well aware of how the Old Boys Network and the Judiciary / Judge of this court work from being the xwife of David Grenadier and have seen first hand at several parties, lunches, ex-parte communications between
Judges and lawyers / lay people of power sway a Judge on how he or she would rule in the case. The Old Boys
Network owns the Judiciary. I have first hand seen Bribery through gifts, meals, payments towards portraits
et al exchange hands or read about them in the news paper. I was illegally jailed and tortured in the City of
Alexandria by Judge James Clark for two reasons 1. To prevent e-mails between myself and Mark Warners
office being exposed and effecting his re-election to the Senate. 2. In the hopes they could mentally torture me
into committing Suicide and silencing me for good as to COVER UP the criminal acts and actions of the
Judiciary, the Government and the Elected Officials along with the Criminal acts of Divorce Lawyer Ilona.
Divorce Lawyer Ilona has created a Scheme that includes several Civil Rights Violations with her hate of Catholics:

I have come to you from rulings by Judge James Clark et al which show his bias, his favoritism, cronyism and his lack of
jurisdiction due to a financial conflict in jailing me for financial gain for his friends in DiMuroGinsberg and Michael
Weiser. That on November 22, 2014 James Clark stated to Mr. Wieser I am so soooorrrrryyyyy I cant collect your
legal fees for you You will have to file for a judgment to collect them. Today Ilona Grenadier comes to this court
without Judgesments with Orders asking for my home to be foreclosed on by Judges whom from the past I believe are in
on the scheme. That the scheme by all appearance is to make me homeless to COVER UP the criminal acts that started in
2007 and continue today which VOIDs any and all statue of limitations due to the criminal acts in a Rico and
Racketeering type enterprise no different than the mafia or what took place in Nazi, Germany to Jews but is being done to
a Catholic that has been Black Balled by the Old Boys Network - That all ORDERS are disingenuous showing exparte communications to be sure that Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier was taken care of with a cover up of her criminal
acts. That the state of Virginias Judiciary involvement is not limited to this court house includes Prince William, the
Appeals Court and the Supreme Court of Virginia. The law and our United States Constitution is very clear of the rights of
American Citizens and the rights to a fair hearing in an open court room with a Judge that has Jurisdiction and is not Bias,
not ruling by Retribution, Retaliation, For Favoritism, Cronyism or personal gain. The DOJ website is very clear:
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW SUMMARY:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a
person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of
Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within
the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts
are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards
and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others
who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the
race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable
by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of
the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both and if bodily
injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both, or may be sentenced to death.

I would like to give you the opportunity to right the wrongs of the practice and pattern of abuse in your Court House that
has gone unchecked by all appearances for several years, and which will continue to happen if not stopped immediately.
The Judges in this court and other Judges who have schemed, have shown a pattern and practice with knowledgeable
intent to prevent Due Process under color of law for favor or personal financial gain, as well as members or family
members of the Judiciary, the Government and Elected Officials, also for personal financial gain. There is little or no
oversight for this pattern and practice, which is a violation of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States
Constitution and laid out clearly in the Bill of Rights:
The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10)

Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Amendment 2 The Right to Bear Arms

Amendment 3 The Housing of Soldiers
Amendment 4 Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
Amendment 5 Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
Amendment 6 Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases
Amendment 7 Rights in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden
Amendment 9 Other Rights Kept by the People
Amendment 10 Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

That all of my rights have been striped of me to allow the Criminal activity in a massive Cover up of Divorce
Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman which started in or around November of 1983 in the forgery of a
Trust Agreement of the Sonia Grenadier Trust that she would go on to steal from till April of 2014 with the sale of the
Property known as Bristow Rd. That she would start her lies and manipulation of me in February of 1986 and start
stealing from me through David Grenadier in December of 1986.
The outline and the back up documents are in the above cases. I have attached to this letter an Article that I put together
that gives an outline of what is happening in Virginia and the Old Boys Network.
I am now asking this court to vacate the orders in the above cases by Judge Clark, Dawkins, Fortkort, Brown, McGrath,
Potter as Judge Kloch already recused himself and wrote an apology letter for acts and actions, due to the appearance of
the scheme in this court to deny me Due Process for favor of Divorce lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman
and David Grenadier who are acting and has acted criminally. I have asked for all Judges to recuse themselves in the past
and they have refused by all appearance believing they are above the law or will be protected by the Old Boys Network.
That under the Judicial Canons by the appearance of any impropriety any judge shall recuse himself. The scheme and
orders in this court and the appeals court show a Bias, Retaliation, Retribution, Favoritism, Cronyism for personal or
friends, and employees personal financial gain with the intent of harming a citizen for which they took an Oath of office
to protect.
Further the Criminal acts of Judicial Misconduct, Criminal Misconduct, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, Discriminacin,
Social, Economic, Hierarchy, Gang Type Behavior as described in the laws of Rico and Racketeering , Attempt to harm
me to prevent Due Process, Tampering with Evidence, Mail Fraud, Violating the Law and the Rules of the Supreme
courts, Violation of the Judicial Cannons, Obstruction of Justice, Fraud on the Court, TREASON, Title 18 U.S. Code 241
& 242; Title 42 U.S. Code 1981 & 1983 ex-parte communication, and other laws.
The Basic Liberty of Due Process has been violated. The basic liberty that our Flag stands for and here is where the
standard of Liberty is set for the rest of the World. It is under the Oath that each Judge has taken that this heavy burden
lies on your shoulders to protect the Rights of each and every American Citizen. That the Appearance of Justice is just as
important as Justice itself.
That Judges are and should be held to a High Ethical Standard. That most importantly the system is set up that it
is a self reporting system or those others in the system when they see another Judge or Lawyer committing an act or
actions in violation of their Oath of Office, Fraud on the court, Honest Service Fraud 18 U.S.C. 1346 or any other action
in conflict with the law that they must report it to the correct authorities or they themselves can be held liable for the
criminal acts or actions.
That further Defendants actions as Lawyers should be reported to the appropriate officials and be investigated along with
the above Judges by a Special Grand Jury.
I come to you as Chief Judge to ask your help and to give me the relief of a Judge with Jurisdiction that can rule fairly
assigned to my case. I am not Judge shopping, as stated in the beginning I have been at the dinner table and watched the

criminal behavior of Judges and know that anyone that Ilona has practiced before or is friend / or wishes to cover up the
injustices will do so. If this does not happen I will consider you to be a party to the scheme and supporting the Criminal
acts of the court house you oversee as being the Chief Judge.

That Justice Douglas wrote: In 1967, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas posed the following inquiry:
What about the judge who conspires with local law enforcement officers to railroad a dissenter? What
about the judge who knowingly turns a trial into a kangaroo court? Or one who knowingly flouts the
Constitution in order to obtain a conviction? [Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 566-67 (1967)].

Those very

issues raised by Justice Douglas over 40 years ago are now surfacing by way of this lawsuit, exposing the two
original Plaintiffs and others such actors while serving as an example to others who might be intentionally
abusing the protected rights of self-represented litigants.
Warmly,
Janice Wolk Grenadier
cc:
The Honorable Donald W. Lemons, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia
The Honorable John Glover Roberts Jr.of the Supreme Court of the United States of America
The Honorable Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States
Director James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Honorable Terry McAuliffe
Senator Chuck Grassley
Attorney General Mark Herring
Ilona Grenadier Heckman through her lawyers Parker, Simon & Kokolis
David Grenadier through his lawyer
Wells Fargo through attorney Troutman Sanders
GJJV Partnership through attorney
James Warbasse through attorney
Padric Kelly OBrien
Army Navy Country Club
Grenadier Starace Duffett & Levi
Michael Wieser
DiMuroGinsberg Andrea Mosley / Ben DiMuro

Argument Recusal of the above Judges

Their are responsibility and consequences of a Judge who has grounds to recuse himself is expected to do so. If a judge does not
know that grounds exist to recuse themselves the error is harmless. If a judge does not recuse themselves when they should have
known to do so, they may be subject to sanctions, which vary by jurisdiction. Depending on the jurisdiction, if an appellate court finds
a judgment to have been made when the judge in question should have been recused, it may set aside the judgment and return the case
for retrial. In this case the Scheme of Fraud on the Court to work with the those not holding them to the law ruling in their favor
even with Civil Rights Violations shows a strong bias to harm and intimidate Pro Se Litigant Janice.
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)
Where an extrajudicial false accusation of a deeply personal and profession nature has been made by the Court against Pro se Janice
prior to his ever ascending the bench, but manifests itself in his current hostile and antagonistic frame of mind in a matter over which

he is currently presiding, Section 455 (a) of Title 28 mandates that the Court "shall disqualify himself" since his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.
Added to the clear language of Section 445, which requires disqualification where the court's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, is the forceful holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 557 (1994), clearly requiring
disqualification under the circumstances presented here: "Section 455(a) provides that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." For present purposes, it should suffice to say that Section 455
(a) is triggered by an attitude or state of mind so resistant to fair and dispassionate inquiry as to cause a party, the public, or a
reviewing court to have reasonable grounds to question the neutral and objective character of a judge's rulings or finding" .
The Second Circuit and the Southern District have repeatedly invoked these objective standards in defining the basis for recusal. Gil
Enterprises, Inc. v. Delvy, 79 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Occhipinti, 851 F. Supp. 523 (SDNY, 1993). As acknowledged in Grodin
v. Random House, Inc., 61 F. 3d. 1045 at 1053, citing appropriate language in Liteky: "deep seated antagonism makes fair judgment
impossible."
The basis for recusal here is premised on an extraordinary false accusation leveled against counsel while the judge was still in private
practice. It was, and is, a personal attack that is extrajudicial. See U.S. v. Serrano, 607 F.2d 1145 (5th Cir. 1979) and U.S. v. Zagaire,
419 F. Supp. 494 (N. Dist. Cal. 1976), where specific note is taken that extrajudicial attacks of a personal nature are the strongest
basis for granting relief.
Nor does it matter that the Court fails to recall the specifics of the event in question: "The goal of section 455(a) is to avoid even the
appearance of partiality. If it would appear to a reasonable person that a judge has knowledge of facts that would give him an
interest in the litigation then an appearance of partiality is created even though no actual partiality exists because the judge does
not recall the facts, because the judge actually has no interest in the case or because the judge is pure in heart and incorruptible. The
judge's forgetfulness, however, is not the sort of objectively ascertainable fact that can avoid the appearance of partiality." Lilyeberg v.
Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 871 (1988).
The plain language of 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2) is clear:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law
served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning
it.
In discussing the import of 455(b), Chief Justice Rehnquist noted, in his dissent, in Lilyeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.,
486 U.S. 847, 871 (1988) that: "Subsection (b) of 455 sets forth more particularized situations in which a judge must disqualify
himself. Congress intended the provisions of 455 (b) to remove any doubt about recusal in cases where a judge's interest is too
closely connected with the litigation to allow his participation."
Where two separate factors involving a past association with a party and personal animus toward counsel combine to establish the
personal bias and prejudice of the judge, as set forth in a timely and sufficient affidavit, the allegations must be accepted as true and
the Court is required to recuse itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144."
The recusal motion has been filed "at the earliest possible moment after obtaining the facts demonstrating a basis for recusal." See
U.S. v. Occhipinti, 851 F. Supp. 523, 567 (So. Dist., NY 1993). It sets forth the origins of the Court's bias: an extrajudicial episode
and prior association. U.S. v. Zagaire, 419 F. Supp. 494 (No. Dist. Cal. 1976), and documents with particularity the manifestation of
bias as reflected in the current proceeding.
As such, and for purposes of Section 144 of Title 28, the allegations of a certified affidavit must be accepted by the Court as true, and
the Court must act in accordance with the mandate of 144 and recuse itself. U.S. v. Sykes, 7 F. 3d 1331 (7th Cir. 1993).

That the evidence in the above cases filed shows the Fraud, Perjury, Forgery, Obstruction of Justice, intend
to mentally harm with much suffering by Janice, Discrimination for Social Hierarchy and Religious beliefs,
the collusion to silence Janice while illegally jailed, Fraud on the Court, Professional Code of Ethics Violations, support of
hate crimes, intimidation, support of illegal jailing and torture of Janice to intimidate and silence, et al that all acts and actions have
been knowledgeable willful acts that were and are ongoing malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless by
the above Judges and Divorce Lawyer Ilona et al..
. That no Plaintiff or Defendant can win when a Judge is ruling in Retaliation, Retribution, Bias, Favoritism, Cronyism or
for or with a financial conflict.
The following are the conflicts that the above Judges have shown with the Judicial Canons: as has been shown in documents
filed with this court.
1. The Judges have violated Canon 1 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia and United States of
America in that they:
a. failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
b. failed to maintain and enforce standards of conduct for fellow judges, and officers of the court.
c. failed to observe minimal standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved.
d. failed to construe and apply the provisions of the Canons of Judicial Conduct to further their objectives.
e. reduced the public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges and the deference of the public to the judgments
and rulings of courts and injured the system of government under law.
f. acted based on favor.
g. failed to comply with the law
h. failed to interpret and apply the laws that govern us.
i. failed to respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust.
j. failed to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system.
k. failed to be an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes.
l. failed to meet even minimal standards for ethical conduct of judges.
2.

The Judges violated Canon 2 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct in that they failed to respect and comply with the law and failed
to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

3.

The Judges violated Canon 3, of the Canons of Judicial Conduct by failing to perform the duties of his judicial office impartially
and diligently.

4.

The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(2) in that they failed to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in
it.
5.

The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(4) in that they failed to hear any proceedings fairly and with patience, failed to
dispose promptly of the business of the court and failed to be efficient and businesslike while being honest and deliberate.

6.

The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(5) in that they failed to perform judicial duties without Retaliation, Retribution,
Favoritism, Cronyism bias or prejudice.

7.

The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(6) in that she failed to refrain in Orders from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or
prejudice based upon social hierarchy, to protect others. Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they failed to accord every
person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, the right to be heard according to law.

8.

The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they and there staff initiated, permitted, and/or considered ex parte
communications, or considered other communications made to the judge outsider the presence of the parties concerning a
pending or impending proceeding on several occasions.
The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that she failed to disclose to all parties all ex parte communications described in
Sections 3B(7)(a) and 3B(7)(b) regarding a proceeding pending or impending before the judge.

9.

10. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they independently investigated facts in a case outside the courtroom and
considered evidence other than that presented in documents, and with the fact they did not allow my witnesss to take the stand.
11. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they failed to insure that Section 3B(7) was not violated through law clerks or
other personnel on the judge's staff. [If communication between the trial judge and the appellate court with respect to a
proceeding is permitted, a copy of any written communication or the substance of any oral communication should be provided to

all parties.]
12. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(8) in that they failed to dispose promptly of the business of the court. In a fair and
unbias why following the law and rules of the Court.
13. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section B(9) in that she failed to abstain from public comment about a pending or impending
proceeding in any court, and failed to direct similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to his direction and control.
14. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(1) in that they failed to diligently discharge the judge's administrative responsibilities
without bias or prejudice and maintain professional competence in judicial administration,
15. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(2) in that they failed to require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's
direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge and to refrain from manifesting bias
or prejudice in the performance of their official duties.
16. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(3) in that as a they Judge failed to take reasonable measures to assure the prompt
disposition of matters before the court.in a professional and fair way.
17. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(4) in:
a. that they failed to exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit;
b.
that they engaged in Retaliation, Retribution, Bias, and showed favoritism;
18. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3D(1) in that they received reliable information indicating a substantial likelihood that other
Judges, and Lawyers hat acted criminally, had conflicts and had committed violations of these Canons or other laws and they did
not take appropriate action.
19. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3D(1) in that they had knowledge that Judge and lawyers had committed violations of
these Canons that raises a substantial question as to their fitness for office and they did not inform the Judicial Inquiry and Review
Commission or other authorities as they are required to do.
20. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3D(2) in that they received reliable information indicating a substantial likelihood that the
attorneys in this case and others had committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and they did not take
appropriate action.
21. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section D(2) in that had knowledge that Attorney Ilona Grenadier Heckmna and others has
committed violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility that raised a substantial question as to his trustworthiness and
fitness as a lawyer and they did not inform the Virginia State Bar.
22. That to date December 2, 2015 Janice has personally provided several statements and Motions to Judge outlining much of the
above and offering to provide additional information.
23. The above Judges have engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice" (Va. Const. art. VI, 10; Code of
Virginia 17.1-906) and there performance as a Judge needs investigating and a Special Grand Jury should be empowered for a
fair and unbias investigation into this court and the actions of the above Judges..

The Criminal Misconduct consists of the following:

Criminal Misconduct and
Misconduct While in Office
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Facts and Laws

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both and if
bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this

section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or

threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both and if death results from the acts committed in violation of
this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined
under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both, or may be sentenced to death.

Racketeering 18 USC 1961

Extortion 18 USC 1951, 18 USC
1963, Va Code 18.2-470
VA Code 18.2-439 Acceptance of bribe
by officer or candidate

That the appearance to is that the Judges were and are in the loop of the collusion of having
Janice jailed and tortured for being poor, Catholic and to Cover up the criminal acts. At all
times threatening incarceration by other Judges if Janice did not pay. Collusion with others
in the intimidation in hopes of Janice being Murdered or committing suicide the acts and
actions show a pattern and practice / Collusion of Virginia Circuit Court Judges, USDC
Federal Court and Appeals Court in Virginia and the District of Columbia That when
DiMuroGinsberg, Grenadier Anderson Starace Duffett & Kieser donated substantially to the
Portrait of Judge Donald Haddock was nothing more than a THANK YOU BRIBARY for
always having their back.
Making judicial decisions outside of the courtroom and relying on extrajudicial, ex parte
Obstruction of Justice 18 USC
information to issue substantive decisions. Conducting ex parte discussions with opposition
1503(a) , 1505, 1506, 1510,
1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1514(A), and government agencies. Not requiring opposition to prove their case but ruling for
1519 VA Code 18.2-409 Resisting or them anyway. Denying procedural due process, denying any and all witnesss or information
that showed the criminal activity of Ilona Grenadier Heckman/ David Grenadier/Erika Lewis
obstruction execution of legal process VA
and their lawyers. Issuing baseless, noncompliant orders and seeking or trying to intimidate
Code 18.2
with the possibility of money to opponents lawyers.
Causing the issuance of coercive letters demanding payment of baseless legal fees in support
Mail Fraud 18 USC 1341
and making threats if I do not pay, then illegally jailing Janice. The above Judges after a
conversation with Judge Haddock, Martha Kent et al Janice believes the Judges believe they
are above the law and by all appearance cooperating outside to find favor with others in the
Judiciary
Honest Services Fraud 18 USC 1961 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 what ever the Judge may request of the lawyers which give the appearance of
bribery. That Janice has seen first hand that the Judges and Lawyers who are friends talk
prior to a trial and the decision is made prior to the trial for the better friend of the most
Powerful Judge as in Janices case it is Judge Donald Kent and Judge Donald Haddock by
appearance running the Judiciary et al in Virginia and in Washington DC it would be Judge
Walton, Howell, Leon and Boasberg, and in the USDC of VA Judge Lee with appeals Judges
Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Hamilton along with many other in the USDC of the District of
Columbia

Gang Activity
Conspiracy 18 USC 1961 VA code
18.2-22

Collusion with numerous individuals and agencies to obstruct justice. Smearing character and
reputation to obtain self-serving favors with the intention of causing overt denials of due
process and blocking receipt of honest services while some judges have been seeking illegal
payments. Deformation of Janice Wolk Grenadier
Public Assistance Fraud VA Code 18.2- Participating in scheme to fraudulently obtain state and federal funds through the Hamp
469 Officer refusing, delaying, ect., to Program and extorted payments from me, for Ilona Grenadier Heckman and lawyers without
legal or factual basis, with the intention of distributing the money among co-conspirators.
execute process for criminal
That ignoring the banks $251 Billion in fines, allowing Lawyers not to answer complaint,
ignoring TroutmanSanders aka Mays and Valentine conflict in all cases.

Egregious Legal Errors

42 U.S.C. 1981 Equal Rights Under
the Law

Participation in attempting to baselessly destroy Janice financially, physically and mentally.

Collusion to illegally Libel and Slander with the Blog jwolkgrenadierisalair.blogspot.com
USDC of District of Columbia denying restraining orders to win favor in a defamatory
public opinion not issued without due process. Collusion to continue Libel and slander with
other Judges and lawyers to protect colleagues. Ultimate goal of murder or suicide, without

legal basis and accomplished through criminality, in both jurisdictions.

Participation attempting to baselessly destroy Janice. Collusion to Libel, Slander with
42 U.S.C. 1983Civil Action for
religious hate in a defamatory public opinion without due process. Ultimate goal of murder,
Deprivation of Rights
suicide to make homeless without legal basis and accomplished through criminality, in both
jurisdictions. To protect the criminal actions of Ilona Grenadier Heckman and those in the
Judicial, Government and Elected Officials whom had already stepped outside the box of
the law in the Cover Up of Lawyer Ilonas actions
Deliberate denial of substantive and procedural due process systemically favoring any
Due Process Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment no person deprived of life, opponent on the basis of Social Hierarchy to obtain favor with the Judiciary, the Government
liberty, or property without due process and other Elected Officials. Collusion to deny procedural due process in VA foreclosure
proceedings not allowing a Jury by Trial as demanded by Janice for fairness in the courts.
of law
That dismissing the complaint with baseless reasoning after proper motions and causing the
issuance of unfounded rulings.
Defined: Different degrees of power and authority by Persons who believe they are above the
Social Hierarchy - Discrimination
law as in Govt, Elected Officials & Judiciary when missed by these persons who believe
They make the laws for those that believe they are above the law so they do not have to
follow the same laws Discrimination for being poor, blacked balled by the Old Boys
Network
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of Religion That all Bodies of the Judiciary, the
Religious Discrimination 42 USC
Government and Elected Officials have supported Ilonas HATE OF CATHOLICS et al
2000bb First Amendment of US

Constitution
Decisions made in bad faith for a corrupt All decisions and Orders have been done deliberately to deny Due Process to protect the
Criminal Acts and Knowledgeable actions of FRIENDS and Colleagues
purpose deliberately and intentionally
failing to follow the law
Extrinsic Fraud See e.g., Schlossberg v. Deliberately issuing unfounded, baseless orders with the knowledge of the Clerk of Court and
Schlossberg, 343 A. 2d 234 - Md: Court collusion to lie to Janice. Perjury, Fraud, harassment seeking money,
of Appeals 1975
Abuse of Contempt Powers VA 18.2- Collusion with others in cases to deliberately deny due process to get case in a contempt
456 (4) Misbehavior of an officer of the posture, then issuing petitions and orders that do not comply with the statutory procedure and
threaten contempt, incarceration and if I do not pay. Illegally incarcerating, torturing Janice
court in his official character
from October 22 November 12, 2014 for the hopes of her committing suicide when she was
(5)Disobedience or resistance of an
released, to prevent e-mails showing Mark Warners knowledge of the corruption in the
officer of the court
Judiciary and the cover up of Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman, for pure abuse of Janice.

Ex parte Communications Judicial Canon Deliberately conducting ex parte discussions with opposition and government agencies and
doing their own investigations, then using the extrajudicial information to issue baseless
3(B)7 Virginia code of Professional
rulings while also denying due process and seeking money for criminal acts by lawyers. That
Conduct

the hamp program offered by the government has been misused by the Banks and Lawyers
which have been pled and ignored
Deformation / Libel / Slander VA Code That in collusion with the other judges the words /statements frivolous Delusional,
18.2 417 Slander and libel, 28 USC malicious & looking for frivolous law suits saying I am Fantastic and fanciful nature by
Gerald Bruce Lee and similar saying by other Judges. Janice has the documents and the proof
4101
of corruption by the Judiciary and Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman Law
firms DiMuroGinsberg and BWW Law Group and Troutman Sanders aka Mays & Valentine
and the Judges for favor are colluding to cover up all criminal acts. That the use of
Deformation is because the real law does not work, because the LAW is on the side of Janice.
Perjury VA Code 18.2-10, 18.2-434, That when the Judges signed Orders that were outside the law, not true and correct that were
false in statements they committed Perjury. That Lawyers Ilona Grenadier Heckman, Ben
8.01-4.3
DiMuro, Michael Weiser, Andrea Mosley, Judge John Tran, Hillary Collyer, filed documents
and mislead this court Obstruting Justice with statement that they knew to be untrue
Designation of Judges to hold courts and assist other Judges That all Judges in all cases by
VA Code 17.105
Janice have been by Judges that did not have Jurisdiction making all orders VOID
An Accessory, either before or after the fact, may, whether the principal felon be convicted
VA Code 18.2 - 21
or not, or be amenable to Justice or not be indicted, tried convicted and punished in the county
or corporation in which he became accessory or in which the principal felon might be
indicted.
Treason Resisting the execution of the laws under color of its authority. If any person
VA Code 18.2-481 Treason
knowing of such treason shall not, as soon as my be, give information thereof to the
VA Code 18.2-482 Misprision of

10

Treason
VA Code 18.2-472
VA Code 18.2-168

VA Code 18.2-455 Unprofessional

Conduct: revocation of license

Governor, or some conservator of the peach he shall be guilty of a Class 6 Felony

False entries or destruction of records by officers of the court When Kemler, Dawkins
and Clark mailed back documents submitted properly into the record ie Mail Fraud
Forging Public Records Ilona Grenadier Heckman That when Ilona was involved with the
forgery of Sonia Grenadiers name in the Trust agreement and then after knowing and be
caught forging continued to use such document with the help of other Lawyers, Government
officials
Conduct illegal by an attorney at law or any person holding license from commonwealth to
engage in a profession in unprofessional conduct

That the above outlines only some of the criminal activity and collusion

11