Divorce Case No.

099 1253 Divorce

Bellefonte Ave Case No. CH 010654 All Orders are VOID
Lis Pendis Case No. CL 15 003661 All Orders are VOID
These are the cases that Judge Clark Ruled in

Lis Pendis Case No. 1400 2193 All Orders are VOID
Grand Jury Case No. M011001482

Criminal Complaint against Judge James Clark for cases:

Divorce Case No. 099 1253 The 2000 Grant of Divorce should stay in tack by Judge Kloch but, all
Orders from Judge Nolan Dawkins / Judge James C. Clark are VOID, that no Property Settlement was ever
agreed on and entered into the record.
Bellefonte Ave Case No. CH 010654 All Orders are VOID
Lis Pendis Case No. 1400 2193

All Orders are VOID

Lis Pendis Case No. CL 15 003661 All Orders are VOID

Grand Jury Case No.

M011001482

The Links and Videos that support the Claims:

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

DSCF0008 - The Mortgage Crisis - Eric Holder

https://youtu.be/poQ6uHhSLXM

Eric Holder and the SCAM on the American People

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

Description
Amendment I
[Religion, Speech, Press,
Assembly, Petition (1791)]
(see explanation)

Amendment IV

Fifth Amendment [Grand

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

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 upon 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
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 selfincrimination. It also requires that due process of law be part of any
proceeding that denies a citizen life, liberty or 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 impo sed,
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.

IX
Ninth Amendment [NonEnumerated Rights
(1791)] (see explanation)

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

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, 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...
Amendment XIV
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.

Bill of Rights

Virginia State Constitution

1.
2.
3.
4.

Freedom of speech
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear

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 1. The right to protection from further harm or reprisal through the imposition of
appropriate bail and conditions of release;
o 2. The right to be treated with respect, dignity and fairness at all stages of the criminal
justice system;
o 3. The right to address the circuit court at the time sentence is imposed;
o 4. The right to receive timely notification of judicial proceedings;
o 5. The right to restitution;
o 6. The right to be advised of release from custody or escape of the offender, whether

before or after disposition; and

o 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 (8A).
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.

10

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 rights enumerated in this Bill of Rights shall not be construed to limit other rights of the people
not therein expressed.

Judicial Canons

Judge Clark has ignored the Judicial Canons. That Judge Clark lost subject matter Jurisdiction on
May 19, 2016 when Defendant found the Financial conflict and apparent COVER UP included his

11

past law firm and client Burke & Herbert Bank That Judge Clark through Bias had lost personal
jurisdiction over Janice as Defendant in this case and Plaintiff in other cases in or around January
2012. That the Code of Judicial conduct does require a judge to respect and comply with the law
to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it and to accord to every person
who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that persons lawyer, the right to be heard according to
the law. That the actions of Judge Clark or not mere legal error they are deliberate malicious
actions to subservient the law for his co-workers, Judges, lawyers, Elected Officials. That Judge
Clark has abused any and all discretion due to the appearance of financial gain on properties
involved in this case.

Professional Code of
Ethics

Professional Code of Ethics

The following and possible others have been Violated thru Misconduct
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.
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) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the client reasonably necessary to permit the client to
informed decisions regarding the representation.
(c) 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,

12

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

13

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.
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) Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;
(2) 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:
(3) 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
(4) 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.

Rule 3.4

Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

A lawyer shall not:

14

(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) Make a false statement of fact or law; or
(b) 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:
(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

15

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 (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
o (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

16

(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 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

17

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
(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

18

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:
o (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 (2) the lawyer has been convicted of a felony in a state, U.S. territory, District of Columbia,
or federal court ;
o (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.

The Illegal Jailing of

Janice Wolk Grenadier
Title 42 US Code 1994,
Title 18 US Code 1581(a)
US Constitution 4th, 8th &
13th Amendments

That Judge Clarks actions have turned back time. Giving Janice 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 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.
Financial Conflict with Burke And Herbert Bank

The Judicial Canons

ignored by all Judges

2.

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

19

d.
e.

f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.

would be preserved.
failed to construe and apply the provisions of the Canons of Judicial Conduct to further
their objectives.
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.
acted based on favor.
failed to comply with the law
failed to interpret and apply the laws that govern us.
failed to respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust.
failed to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system.
failed to be an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes.
failed to meet even minimal standards for ethical conduct of judges.

3.

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.

4.

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

5.

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

6. 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.
7. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(5) in that they failed to perform judicial duties
without Retaliation, Retribution, Favoritism, Cronyism bias or prejudice.
8.

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.

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.]
13. 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.
14. 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.

20

15. 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,
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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;
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section D(2) in that had knowledge that Attorney Ilona Grenadier
Hackman 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.
23. 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.
24. 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..

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.

Racketeering 18 USC
1961, Extortion 18 USC

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

21

1951, 18 USC 1963, Va

Code 18.2-470 VA Code
18.2-439 Acceptance of
bribe by officer or candidate

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. That Janice was held in
Solitaire Confinement to ensure that e-mails of the corruption could not be released prior to the
election of Senator Mark Warner who had gotten caught pay to play with a Federal Judgeship in
Virginia.

Obstruction of Justice 18
USC 1503(a) , 1505,
1506, 1510, 1511,
1512, 1513, 1514,
1514(A), 1519 VA Code
18.2-409 Resisting or
obstruction execution of
legal process VA Code 18.2

Making judicial decisions outside of the courtroom and relying on extrajudicial, ex parte information
to issue substantive decisions. Conducting ex parte discussions with opposition and government
agencies. Not requiring opposition to prove their case but ruling for 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 and their lawyers. Issuing
baseless, noncompliant orders and seeking or trying to intimidate with the possibility of money to
opponents lawyers. That lawyers ignore Subpoenas/ ask to have quashed due to a bit of work
getting the information together or to hid the TRUTH.

Mail Fraud 18 USC

1341

Causing the issuance of coercive letters demanding payment of baseless legal fees in support 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

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
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 -

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

Conspiracy 18 USC 1961

VA code 18.2-22
Public Assistance Fraud
VA Code 18.2-469 Officer
refusing, delaying, ect., to
execute process for
criminal

Participating in scheme to fraudulently obtain state and federal funds through the Hamp 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. That ignoring the banks
$251 Billion in fines, allowing Lawyers not to answer complaint, ignoring TroutmanSanders aka
Mays and Valentine conflict in all cases. Choosing a commissioner in closed doors that would do
the dirty work for Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman. That the issues with the Mortgage on
the home is not limited to actions of Janice but, includes Ben DiMuro calling in a favor from BWW
Law Group.

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.

42 U.S.C. 1983Civil Action

for Deprivation of Rights

Participation attempting to baselessly destroy Janice. Collusion to Libel, Slander with religious hate
in a defamatory public opinion without due process. Ultimate goal of murder, suicide to make

22

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

Due Process Fifth &

Fourteenth Amendment no
person deprived of life,
liberty, or property without
due process of law

Deliberate denial of substantive and procedural due process systemically favoring any
opponent on the basis of Social Hierarchy to obtain favor with the Judiciary, the Government
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.
That dismissing the complaint with baseless reasoning after proper motions and causing the
issuance of unfounded rulings.

Social Hierarchy
Discrimination

Defined: Different degrees of power and authority by Persons who believe they are above the 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

Religious Discrimination 42
USC 2000bb First
Amendment of US
Constitution

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of Religion That all Bodies of the Judiciary, the
Government and Elected Officials have supported Ilonas HATE OF CATHOLICS et al

Decisions made in bad faith

for a corrupt purpose
deliberately and intentionally
failing to follow the law

All decisions and Orders have been done deliberately to deny Due Process to protect the Criminal
Acts and Knowledgeable actions of FRIENDS and Colleagues

Extrinsic Fraud See e.g.,

Schlossberg v. Schlossberg,
343 A. 2d 234 - Md: Court
of Appeals 1975

Deliberately issuing unfounded, baseless orders with the knowledge of the Clerk of Court and
collusion to lie to Janice. Perjury, Fraud, harassment seeking money,

Abuse of Contempt Powers

VA 18.2-456 (4)
Misbehavior of an officer of
the court in his official
character (5)Disobedience or
resistance of an officer of the
court

Collusion with others in cases to deliberately deny due process to get case in a contempt 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 from October 22
November 12, 2014 for the hopes of her committing suicide when she was released, to prevent emails showing Mark Warners knowledge of the corruption in the Judiciary and the cover up of
Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman, for pure abuse of Janice.

Ex parte Communications
Judicial Canon 3(B)7

Deliberately conducting ex parte discussions with opposition and government agencies and doing
their own investigations, then using the extrajudicial information to issue baseless rulings while also
denying due process and seeking money for criminal acts by lawyers. That the hamp program

23

Virginia code of Professional

Conduct

offered by the government has been misused by the Banks and Lawyers which have been pled and
ignored

Deformation / Libel /
Slander VA Code 18.2 417
Slander and libel, 28 USC
4101

That in collusion with the other judges the words /statements frivolous Delusional, 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 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, 8.01-4.3

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 DiMuro,
Michael Weiser, Andrea Mosley, Judge John Tran, Hillary Collyer, filed documents and mislead
this court Obstructing Justice with statement that they knew to be untrue

VA Code 17.105 (b)

Designation of Judges to hold courts and assist other Judges That all Judges in all cases by
Janice have been by Judges that did not have Jurisdiction making all orders VOID

VA Code 18.2 21

An Accessory, either before or after the fact, may, whether the principal felon be convicted 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 knowing
of such treason shall not, as soon as my be, give information thereof to the Governor, or some
conservator of the peach he shall be guilty of a Class 6 Felony

VA Code 18.2-481
Treason - VA Code 18.2482 Misprision of Treason
VA Code 18.2-472

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
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

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.

VA Code 18.2-168

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

24

VA Code 18.2-455
Unprofessional Conduct:
revocation of license

Conduct illegal by an attorney at law or any person holding license from commonwealth to
engage in a profession in unprofessional
Conduct

9. 1 600 Civilian
Protection in cases of
police misconduct :
Minimum standards

A. State, local, and other public law enforcement agencies, which have ten or more law enforcement
officers, shall have procedures as established in subsection B, allowing citizen submission of
complaints regarding the conduct of the law enforcement agency, law enforcement officers in the
agency, or employees of the agency.
B. Law enforcement agencies shall ensure, at a minimum, that in the case of all written complaints:
1. The general public has access to the required forms and information concerning the submission of
complaints
2. The law enforcement agency assists individuals in filing complaints and
3. Adequate records are maintained of the nature and disposition of such cases.
The Scheme involved the police. That divorce lawyer Ilona Grenadier lied to the police and Judge
Clark ignored such criminal acts which come under Obstruction of Justice which Judge Clark
empowered by quashing the Subpoena for evidence to prove further the collusion and corruption of
all.

18.2-434 P ERJURY BY
J UDGE J AMES C LARK

Judge James Clark LIED, in court on April 27, 2016 June 8, 2016 and June 22,
2016 His relationship with Butke and Herbert Bank, his financial relationship with
Burke and Herbert bank. Judge James Clark has obstructed Justice as he calls it for
his Friendships

25