IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA RECORD NO: ___________________

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Janice Wolk Grenadier Appellant, v. ILONA ELY FREEDMAN GRENADIER HECKMAN And GRENADIER INVESTMENT CO, LTD, And DAVID MARK GRENADIER Appellees, APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA - CASE # CH010654 (RULE 5:17)

Janice Wolk Grenadier 15 West Spring Street Alexandria, VA 22301 703-623-9655 pro se

jwolkgreandier3@aol.com

Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman, Esquire Grenadier Heckman Starace Duffett 649 South Washington Street Alexandria, Va 22314

703-683-9000 Counsel for / pro se - Appellee - Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman & Grenadier Investment Co. LTD till approximately May 28, 2010 Benard J. Dimuro, Esquire (VSB # 18784) bdimuro@dimuro.com Hillary J. Collyer, Esquire (VSB # 50952) hcollyer@dimuro.com John M. Tran, Esquire (VSB # 24349) jtran@dimuro.com DiMuroGinsburg 908 King Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-684-4333 Counsel for - Appellee - Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman & Grenadier Investment Co. LTD from approximately May 28, 2010 Michael J. Wiser, Esquire ( VSB #17630) mjwesq@erols.com 510 King Street, Suite 416 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-836-7003 Counsel for Appellee David Mark Grenadier

SUBJECT INDEX Assignment of Error Question Presented Nature of the Case and Material Proceedings in the Court of Trial Parties Statement of Facts Argument Conclusion

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CONSTITUTIONS United States Constitution.. passim Virginia Constitution.......... passim CASES: Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), was a case before the United States Supreme Court In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), Butz v. Economou, 98 S.Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S.Ct. at 261 (1882) Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) Davis v. City of Portsmouth, 579 F. Supp. 1205, 1209-10 (E.D. Va. 1983), affd, 742 F .2d 1448 (4th Cir. 1984) Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936), Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) United States Supreme Court Harrison v. U.S. Postal Services 840 F. 2d 1149, 1152 (4th Cir. 1988). Under Illinois and Federal law, Citation: 93F. 2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937)
,Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193

Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill. 2d 245, 249, 218 N.E. 2d 706, 708 (1953) Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)
3

Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n 35, 96 S. Ct 3037, 49 L Ed. 2d 1067 (1976) U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980);

STATUES: Virginia Code 17.1-105 (b)

-

Designation of judges

passim

CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon1.....passim A Judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon 2.passim A Judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the Judges activities. Canon 3 ..passim A Judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently. (Part Six, III of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia integrates the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia stated above.) RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Preamble: A Lawyers Responsibilities...........passim A lawyer is an officer of the legal system. Rules 1.1 - 1.18: Client-Lawyer Relationship..... passim Rules 3.1 - 3.9: Advocate*.............passim Rules 4.1 - 4.4: Transactions with Persons other than Clients*passim

(Part Six, II of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia integrates the Professional Guidelines and the Rules of Professional Conduct stated above.) EXHIBITS A. The Case Document Action Details Page 19 Page 20 Page 20

B. Letter Dated February 8, 2008 from Defendant Ilona C. Tax Record to show ownership of Southway

D. February 27, 2008 CounterClaim and Cross-Complaint. Page 20 E. Letter May 21, 2008 from Defendant Ilona F. July 24, 2008 threatening e-mail to Plaintiff from Defendant Ilona G. Filed February 3, 2011 Respondents Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Appeal H. Front page Supreme Court of Virginia Record No. 110156 Filed on February 18, 2012 I. E-mails between Scotty Subitzky, Ilona Grenadier, and Diane Brodsky J. E-mails between Plaintiff, Amy Bird, Scotty Subitzky, Jon Barker K. The Interment Order and Authorization for Ruth Subitzky to be buried next to her Mother, Father and Brother the late Judge Albert Grenadier. Page 20 Page 21 Page 24 Page 23 Page 15 Page 15

Page 15

L. The Order by Judge Clark the Circuit Court of Alexandria refusing Plaintiff the Right to File her Opposition Page 18 M. A Copy of the Opposition to Order by Judge Clark on the Statement of Facts for September 26, 2012 . Page 18
5

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1. The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred when it granted the defendants motion to impose monetary sanctions against the plaintiff in violation of the Code of Virginia 8.01-271.1, on the grounds that her Motion to Reopen the Case based upon Fraud on the Court was not well grounded in fact nor warranted by existing law. 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)

2. The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred when it granted the Appellees motion to deny the Appellant due process under the U.S. Constitution by entering an order to deprive her of any future of legal documents without the permission of Judge Clark in the Circuit Court of Alexandria. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)

3. The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred by failing to protect the Civil Rights of Plaintiff by ignoring Due Process, showing favoritism to the Defendants and Defendants attorneys because of who they are part of the Old Boys Network of Virginia. Plaintiff was informed this by the x-wife ( Martha Kent ) of Judge Kent for Plaintiffs Senator Patsy Ticer You are no longer one of them. You cant get a fair trial just like me and my family you need to drop this you cant win Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court against discrimination. Which includes being discriminated because the Judges, lawyers, elected officials and government employees have decided you are not a part of their race. 4. The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred by failing to follow Va. Code 17.1-105(b) after all judges recused themselves (or were required to recuse themselves) from this matter because of personal relationships between Defendants and the judges. Instead of having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoint an out of Circuit Judge to hear the case, the Circuit Court of Alexandria (or its clerk) selected a judge themselves. Appellants motions challenging the appointment of the out of Circuit judges were denied and judgment ultimately entered against her. All Orders in this case are Void due to no Judge who has heard case has been appointed appropriately by law. Judge Clark who heard this case on September 26, 2012 by his past actions should have recused himself. 5. The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred when it allowed
7

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

6. The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred when it returned Appellants documents that were summited into evidence on September 26, 2012, through USPS mail on or around October 13, 2012. This evidence ( a white notebook) was entered into the record with no objections from Appellees, or Appellees attorneys. 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
8

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.

7. The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred with it rulings In denying access to pro se litigants such as myself to filing documents with the Clerk of Courts office. The order is not rational nor would such an Order be allowed if Plaintiff was an attorney or had an attorney. Further, this policy puts Plaintiff before the court on an unequal footing with Plaintiffs opponent, a due process violation.
,Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193 ;Pure Oil Co.

v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956);Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936), the court exceeded it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) Plaintiffs opponent has the benefits of being an attorney, the widow of a past Judge that has served with all the Judges that have heard the case, and is now represented by counsel, that was a past President of the Virginia State Bar, and has donated 10% of his estate to the Bar when he passes. Along with the Defendant Ilona & her counsel generously donating to the Judicial fund for Judge Haddocks portrait after Judge Haddock informed Plaintiff in May of 2008 You will never get a fair trial as we LOVE ILONA and then in October of 2011 blocked Plaintiff from going in front of the Grand Jury in the City of Alexandria as he stated I believe you are going to talk about me . He then went on to demand
9

Plaintiff to come back on December 12, 2010 which was postponed to protect his retirement of December 31, 2010. Plaintiff was then blocked in February of 2011 by Commonwealth Attorney Randy Sengel and Supreme Court appointed Judge Richard Bowen Potter. The right of self-representation in a civil case is a fundamental right under the Constitution. I recognize that this argument is contrary to dicta of this circuit: however, Faretta v. California, (422 U.S. 806) and the history on which that decision is based, is apparent that the fundamental right of self-representation extends to all matters, civil as well as criminal.

8. The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred when it served an Order on Appellant signed by Judge Kemler, Judge Dawkins, Judge Clark dated October 12, 2012 denying the Appellant due process under the U.S. Constitution by entering an order to deprive her of any future of legal documents with the Circuit Court of Alexandria. ( Judge Kemler and Judge Dawkins by appearance had recused themselves from this case ( Judge Kemler in September of 2007 and April of 2008 for Judge Dawkins), then in writing on or around October 11, 2010 in an Order to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiff has not had her day in Court!

10

9. The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred when it ignored the fact Plaintiff had not been served properly by Defendants attorneys, service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court Rules, Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill. 2d 245, 249, 218 N.E. 2d 706, 708 (1953)

QUESTION PRESENTED
Question: Did the Circuit Court of Alexandria err by appointing an out of Circuit judge, instead of have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoint an out of Circuit judge pursuant to Va.Code 17.1.105(B), when all judges of the Circuit Court of Alexandria recused themselves (or were required to recuse themselves) because of relationships between Defendants and the Judges. Answer: Yes. Thus, the judgment against Plaintiff should be vacated and the matter remanded for trial before a new out of Circuit judge appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Question: Should Judge Clark have recused himself on September 26, 2012. Answer: Yes by all appearance he had done so in the past: 1. January 25, 2012 not hearing a Motion filed appropriately with the Clerks office 2. February 8, 2012 not hearing a Motion filed appropriately with the Clerks office
11

and had received a letter in May of 2012 stating he would be involved in a suit against those that had prevented Plaintiff from a Fair trial and blocking her on or around February 12, 2012 scheduled appearance in front of a Grand Jury. Question: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding that the pleadings Plaintiff signed (a) were not well grounded in fact, (b) were interposed for improper purpose, and (c) were not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for re-opening case, under 8.01 271.1 with the sanctions apposed on Plaintiff. Answer: Yes. Plaintiff on July 26, 2012 filed to re-open the case with, over 1,000 pages of Exhibits of evidence that she was due the money, and that Fraud on the Court by Defendants (Ilona and officer of the court) and their attorneys had taken place. Plaintiff as evidence presented the Deed of Trust, Hud Is, canceled checks, bank statements, letters etc. for monies due her. Question: Have Janices Fundamental rights as an American Citizen, under the United States Constitution, Civil Right Laws, Political, Religious and Virginia Constitution been violated. Answer: Yes: That Plaintiffs fundamental right to Due Process the basic Freedoms that our country stands for. The right to due process without Fraud from Lawyers, Judges, Judicial, Elected officials is a primary component of Freedom. The right to a Fair Trial Due Process is the basic Constitution right that has been the source of the light of freedom that our Country has given the World. This basic Liberty is what our flag stand for
12

and here is where the standard of Liberty is set for the rest of the World. This case started out as a Real Estate Partnership where one partner took advantage of another partner that partner Defendant Ilona appellee, officer of the court showed how little integrity she has from how she stole from the Sonia Grenadier Trust - not once but on several occasions, along with using the Forged Trust Addendum to move Herman Grenadier from his resting place, using forged trust addendum to donate his land and by appearance took as a personal tax deduction. After allowing his daughter Ruthie to be buried next to her brother the late Judge Albert Grenadier, to then send an e-mail that she didnt give permission and filed a false complaint with the State of Virginia. Ilona Appellee was also Ruthies attorney, and waited 3 years after she was buried so the family couldnt get her records from Ilona Appellee attorney, officer of the court.( Exhibits I, J, K ) But, it is deeply saddening now to see how harsh the effects of deprivation of basic freedoms, deprivation of constitutional rights are to Plaintiffs freedom and basic human rights are to Plaintiffs freedom. On September 26, 2012 Janice entered into evidence a Notebook of exhibits it was accepted by the Judge who then asked Appellees attorneys if there were any objections. They did not object. Plaintiff has included Exhibits as she is not sure what has been removed from or included in her file from the Clerks office in the City of Alexandria. Question : Were Judges, Defendants Attorneys bullying pro se Plaintiff saying her filings were Frivolous? Answer : Yes - The facts are very clear and have never changed. The Plaintiffs due process has been violated by Judges, attorneys, state
13

employees, city employees, elected officials. Plaintiffs case does not lack legal merit. There is collusion between the above to prevent Plaintiffs due process. Plaintiff has shown full documentation in Exhibits filed with Motion to re-open her case. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. Justice Brennan concurred on the ground that while denying indigents access to the courts for nonpayment of a fee is a denial of due process, it is also a denial of equal protection of the laws, and no distinction can be drawn between divorce suits and other actions.

Nature of the Case and Material Proceedings in the Court of Trial

What started out as a partnership agreement for a piece of Real Estate has turned into a Constitutional right of Plaintiff for Due Process. By a corrupt attorney Defendant Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman that since on or around September 7, 2007 has used bribery, friendships, lies, intimidation, willfully with acts that were malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless. The Exhibits which have been added for ease, and because of the nature of the Judges handling of Plaintiffs file with the Circuit Court of Alexandria Plaintiff is not sure all documents will be forwarded to the Supreme Court. These documents should be found in the file from July 26th filing of Motion, except for Exhibits L & M the last two shows the Courts deliberate willful actions of malleus towards Plaintiff blocking her Opposition of the Judges Order on the Facts of the Case. On September 26, 2012 Judge Clark took away Plaintiffs basic Rights as an American Citizen to file documents in her case
14

without his permission. In doing this Judge Clark set the appearance of a Trustee relationship between Plaintiff and Judge, as he is aware of the case and actions of the Defendant to be in value of close to 3 Million dollars. Defendant Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman since March of 1990 has acted with fraudulent behavior, manipulation of Plaintiff and the Court has been disingenuous to protect her illegal actions in her law firm of the financial theft from the Sonia Grenadier Trust, and Plaintiff. PARTIES 1) Plaintiff (Appellant) Janice Wolk Grenadier a 50% Owner of 28 East Bellefont Avenue, Alexandria of which the other 50% is owned by Grenadier Investment Co. Ltd. (GIC). She is divorced from David Mark Grenadier. Victim of manipulation from lawyer Defendant Ilona 2) Defendant (Appellee) David Grenadier is a 49% owner of GIC. He is the stepson of Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman and the son of the late Judge Albert Grenadier of the Circuit Court of Alexandria. 3) Defendant (Appellee) - Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman is a 51% owner of GIC. She is a licensed attorney in Virginia and was the wife of the late Judge Albert Grenadier. She through her law firm is with holding a note that she wrote and kept the only copies when she was by appearance working as attorney for Plaintiff. Ilona officer of the court advised Plaintiff at the time she was not to talk to anyone or to seek other legal advice in regard to the situation with the stealing of funds from the Sonia Grenadier Trust out of her law firm.
15

In the Exhibits B, C, D, E, F you will find letters and e-mails that are inappropriate and disingenuous in content that Defendant Ilona representing herself, in this case sent to Plaintiff to intimidate Plaintiff. On or around July 26, 2011 E-mails (Exhibit I) between Scotty Subitzky, Ilona Grenadier, and Diane Brodsky (4 pages ) You must start on Page 4 and work towards page 1of the e-mails. The Sonia Grenadier Trust is discussed along with the disingenuous statement that Ilona a lawyer officer of the court didnt give permission for their mother to be buried next to her mother, father, and brother and they now needed to have her moved as Ilona officer of the court didnt want strangers in her garden. On or around August 10, 2011 E-mails (Exhibit J) between Plaintiff, Amy Bird, Scotty Subitzky, Jon Barker trying to get information that has been denied. Defendant Ilona filed a disingenuous complaint with the State of Virginia saying she had not given permission for Ruth Subitzky to be buried next to her Mother, Father and Brother. She also did not mention in the complaint the use of the forged Trust Addendum, and refuses to disclose whose money she used to buy the new garden with. On or around May 20, 2012 Ilona an officer of the court signed The Interment Order and Authorization ( Exhibit K ) for Ruth Subitzky to be buried next to her Mother, Father and Brother the late Judge Albert Grenadier. Which she denies in Exhibit I and in her Complaint to the State of Virginia saying King David Memorial of Falls Church, had buried a stranger in her Garden without her permission. Where
16

in truth by all appearance Defendant Ilona knowingly had used a Forged Trust agreement to move Herman, donate his garden and refuses to produce the checks used to purchase garden. Which at the time out of Defendant Ilonas law firm money was being stolen from the Sonia Grenadier Trust. This evidence is the nature of the way Defendant Ilona has treated Plaintiff during these procedures and has blocked Plaintiff from due process. Defendant Ilona holds a note from when she worked as Plaintiffs lawyer, threatening her that she was not to get other legal advice. 4) Defendant (Appellee) - Grenadier Investment Co. Ltd (GIC) a Real Estate Investment Co. owned 51% by Ilona Grenadier Heckman and 49% by David Grenadier. 5) Sonia Grenadier Innocent Victim that Defendant Ilona through

her law firm created a situation to steal over $95,000. From her trust. The follow is the Facts in re-guard to what has taken place against Sonia Grenadier. This pertains to this case because it shows the extent Defendant Ilona will go to steal and get away with the theft. On or around October 16, 1973 Herman Grenadier died (with a last will and testament) was buried in one of the lots he and Sonia (his wife) owned at King David Memorial Garden On or around May 2, 1975 a Trust called the Sonia Grenadier Trust was created On or around July 4, 1978 Albert Grenadier married Ilona Ely Freedman On or around Novemer 30, 1983 an Amendment to the Sonia Grenadier Trust was done giving Ilona Grenadier Trustee powers - The Trust Amendment Sonias signature was forged.
17

On or around March 29, 1985 Judge Albert Grenadier died being buried in the Garden owned by Ilonas family at King David Memorial Garden On or around May 20, 1985 Ilona was informed the amendment to the Sonia Grenadier Trust was forged and VOID On or around September 24, 1985 Ilona claims to have purchased her own garden at King David Memorial Garden ( Ilona will not produce the checks to show if she paid for the garden or it was paid for out of a checking account with Judge Albert Grenadiers name and Sonia Grenadiers account) On or around September 25, 1985 Ilona moved Albert Grenadier out of her families garden to her garden On or around September 26, 1985 Ilona stole Herman Grenadier out of his garden and moved him to hers using the Trust Amendment that was VOID due to the forgery of Sonia Grenadiers name On or around December 6, 1985 Jim Arther wrote to Ilona in regard to the Sonia Greandier Trust and the mechanics of it On or around December 1985 Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier married Jerome (Jerry ) Heckman 1st cousin to the late Judge Albert Grenadier Albert according to his family considered Jerry a Wiesel. Jerrys mother Pauline was Sonias sister On or around March 18, 1986 Ilona Grenadier Sonia & Herman Grenadiers Garden at King David using the Trustee agreement that she was informed around May 20, 1985 that it was VOID she did not have Trustee powers. At one point Ruth Grenadier Subitzky (Alberts sister) became a paying client of Ilona Grenadiers law firm On or around May 17, 2008 Ruth Grenadier Subitzky died and with Ilonas written permission was buried in her garden

18

On or around May of 2008 Janice Wolk Grenadier learned that Ilona had acted intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously in the manipulation of her and Ruth, all the lawyers and everyone involved in the mismanagement of the Sonia Grenadier Trust. Ruths children met with Ilona at which time she mentioned an issue with King David - JWG believes she was waiting for the 3 year time frame to expire so she could legally dispose of all of Ruths files. On or around July 26, 2011 Ruths children called JWG to help them with an issue They had been contacted that a Stranger was in Ilonas garden That Stranger Ilona was claiming not to know was their Mother Ruths children got a call (Amy Bird) from King David that Ilona wanted her mother dug up because she hadnt been given permission to be buried there. Which was untrue. STATEMENT OF FACTS On September 26, 2012 in the Circuit Court of Alexandria Judge Clark presiding, Issued 3 Orders Sanctioning Plaintiff, and taking away Plaintiffs rights to file documents in the Circuit Court of Alexandria. Judge Clark the Circuit Court of Alexandria refused Plaintiff the Right to oppose his Order on the Statement of Facts that he filed on December 7, 2012. His statement of Facts is fanciful in nature with no direct detail. In all 3 Orders on September 26, 2012 Judge Clark took away the basic liberties of Plaintiff, due to the value of the case and his knowledge of the value of the case he has created a Trustee type relationship with Plaintiff. (Exhibit M) Is his Order denying Plaintiff the right to file an Opposition to his Order. The affidavits from Defendants attorneys show conversations with Judges Chambers which by all appearance is ex-parte communication with the Judge.
19

A Copy of the Plaintiffs Opposition to the Order entered by Judge Clark ( Exhibit N ) in regard to Plaintiffs Statement of Facts for September 26, 2012 . The opposition contains the unprofessional behavior to other Plaintiffs that have tried to find Justice in the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria, and have also been threaten with bodily harm. This supports Plaintiffs own discrimination by the Circuit Court and Clerks office in the City of Alexandria. This case started when Janice Wolk Grenadier (Plaintiff) filed claims in the Circuit Court of Alexandria (the Circuit Court) in September, 2007 against Defendants related to 28 East Bellefonte Avenue, Alexandria VA (the Property) owned 50% by Plaintiff and 50% by GIC (which was owned by Defendants Ilona and David ). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to pay their fair share of expenses related to the Property. Plaintiff claimed damages of approximately $300,000,( damages for Bellefonte are now around $530,000 without punitive damages & $ 2.25 million for the note and loss of business) including interest compounded at 10%. Defendants Ilona and David were related to the late Judge Grenadier of the Circuit Court. Defendant Ilona was disingenuous in court on September 7, 2007 about being served. Exhibit A shows Defendant Ilona a lawyer (officer of the Court) representing herself had been appropriately served by the Sheriffs in the City of Alexandria, and that she deliberately made false statements to Judge Kloch about service. Which is where this slippery sloop started. At the time that Plaintiff filed suit, the judges of the Circuit Court were Judge Donald Haddock, Judge Lisa Kemler, and Judge John Kloch.
20

On

or about September 22, 2007, Plaintiff was informed by Diane Fiske, the Court administrator, that all three judges had recused themselves, i.e. (1) Judge Kemler was a close friend of and grew up with Defendant David; (2) Judge Haddock was a personal friend of Defendant Ilona; and (3) Judge Kloch had a personal relationship with Defendant Ilona and her late husband, Judge Grenadier.i1 The matter was assigned to out of Circuit Court judges who were not appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as early as December, 2007 when out of Circuit Court Judge Thomas A. Fortkort denied Plaintiffs motion for a default. On February 8, 2008 Plaintiff received a letter ( Exhibit B) from Defendant Ilona a lawyer (officer of the Court) representing herself, the correspondence clearly indicates defendants knowingly Fraud on the Court. The letter is riddled with false statements. The correspondence is malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, and grossly reckless for a lawyer. In Letter (Exhibit B) Defendant Ilona a lawyer (officer of the Court) representing herself states on Page 2 Paragraph 2 to look at the recent sale of Southway a property purchased by GIC (Exhibit C) This Public record shows the ownership of Defendant Ilona a lawyer (officer of the Court) still owned property as of September of 2008, and still owns such property as of today according to Public Tax Records. On February 27, 2008 Defendant Ilona a lawyer (officer of the Court) representing herself filed a Counterclaim - Cross Complaint (Exhibit D) that she owned

Judge Kloch denied Plaintiffs motion for default on September 12, 2007 prior to recusing himself.
1

21

75% of property known as 28 E Bellefonte, along with several other misrepresentations to the court. On or around May 21, 2008 Plaintiff received another letter (Exhibit E) from Defendant Ilona a lawyer (officer of the Court) representing herself the letter is full of disingenuous statements. On page 1 bottom of the page she alleges that in admissions after Plaintiff supplied information that she admitted ownership of the 50 50%. Plaintiff if you look in the File On or around September 21, 2007 when she filed her first Motion for Default due to Plaintiffs lie about not being served for court on September 7, 2012 to Judge Kloch that Plaintiff had filed all documents in the Motion for Default, along with an accounting Defendant Ilona had done in regard to the Property, showing she had never put more than approximately $3,800. Into the Bellefonte Property taking out approximately $85,000. Again a threatening and disingenuous letter from Ilona an officer of the court while in litigation against Plaintiff. July 24, 2008 Plaintiff received threatening email (Exhibit F ) from Defendant Ilona a lawyer (officer of the Court) representing herself with response from Plaintiff. The e-mail represents the unprofessional and how disrespect Defendant Ilona a lawyer (officer of the Court) representing herself has for the basic rules of the Court. It really speaks for itself the threats to Plaintiff. This e-mail goes into her actions with the Sonia Grenadier Trust. Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985),

22

In April, 2008, Judge Kloch retired and was replaced by Judge Dawkins who was appointed on April 24, 2008 and sworn in on June, 2008. In July, 2008, out of Circuit Court Judge Brown denied Plaintiffs motion for a jury trial. After the decision, Defendant Ilona informed Plaintiff that Judge Brown was her friend. This was never disclosed to Plaintiff before Judge Browns decision. Judge John McGrath, an out of Circuit Court judge, was chosen by the Circuit Court to hear the matter in May, 2008. Judge McGrath dismissed the case in September, 2008.2 In June, 2010, Plaintiff learned of Va.Code 17.1.105(B). On July 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside all decisions from September 17, 2007 forward because the out of Circuit Court judges were improperly appointed. Plaintiff filed an addendum on August 4, 2010. Judge Kloch denied Plaintiffs post-trial motion on August 11, 2010 (even though he had recused himself in 2007 and retired in April, 2008) and then recused himself and immediately vacated his decision on August 12, 2010. Thereafter, Judge Dawkins denied Plaintiffs post trial motion on or about October 20, 2010 even though in June, 2010 Plaintiff was informed by Diane Fiske that all judges of the Circuit Court had recused themselves. On July 26, 2012 Plaintiff after learning that the actions of the court and defendant Ilona an officer of the court were considered Fraud on the Court
2

In his August 12, 2010 decision vacating his decision and recusing himself, Judge Kloch disclosed a close business relationship with Judge McGrath through Judicial Solutions, a private dispute resolution company based in Harrisonburg. Needless to say, this creates the inference that Judge Kloch may have been involved in the selection of Judge McGrath the exact type of appearance of impropriety that Va.Code 17.1.105(B) is designed to avoid, i.e. recused judges (or judges who should be recused) selecting their successors instead of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
23

and knowing she still had not had due process Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. filed to have the case re-opened. On September 26, 2012 Plaintiff had all her fundamental rights striped from her by Judge Clark of the Circuit Court of Alexandria. Judge Clark blocked Plaintiff from calling Plaintiffs witness Ilona Grenadier (aka Ilona Heckman) that had been served after Plaintiff had 3 times gone into the Sheriffs office to confirm service. Plaintiff was informed if she had not checked with the Sheriffs department and been as persistent the service would not have occurred. Plaintiff had filed a Les Pendens to protect her claim against Defendant Ilona officer of the court, with this suit and a Note that Ilona officer of the court had with willful acts were malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless in July of 1990 had Plaintiff agree to a loan of $30,000. To reimburse the Sonia Grenadier Trust for monies stolen out of the Grenadier Law Firm from the Trust. This protected Defendant Ilona officer of the court being held responsible for over $95,000. being stolen out of the Sonia Grenadier Trust to enrich defendant Ilona officer of the court in Millions in Real Estate purchases with funds taken from the Trust. Judge Clark in Court with little respect to pro se Plaintiff refused to explain rule 8.01-271.1 when plaintiff explained she did not understand the rule with the sanctions. Plaintiff then went on to remind Judge Clark When reviewing a pro-se pleading, it is prudent to follow the federal practice of liberally construing the allegations set out in the pleading to determine whether the pleading asserts any valid causes of action. See,
24

e.g. Harrison v. U.S. Postal Services 840 F. 2d 1149, 1152 (4th Cir. 1988). The factual allegations should be viewed in the light most favorable to the pleading party. Davis v. City of Portsmouth, 579 F. Supp. 1205, 1209-10 (E.D. Va. 1983), affd, 742 F .2d 1448 (4th Cir. 1984) Defendants attorneys on September 26, 2012 main concern was getting the heading in pleadings to read Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier instead of Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman as they presented it to be malicious of Plaintiff to add Heckman to Defendant Ilonas name. You will notice in the (Exhibit H ) which was filed with the Supreme Court of Virginia on February 10, 2010 by Defendants own attorneys (DiMuro, Collyer & Weiser) they use the name Heckman. This is just one more example of the harassment of pro se Plaintiff. This disingenuous argument by the attorneys was used for Sanctions against Plaintiff. Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed fraud upon the court, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. Citation: 93F. 2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937) Any judgment procured by fraud is null and void. An erroneous judgment may be attacked collaterally. Affirmed

Plaintiff on September 26, 2012 reminded the court as part of her Fraud on the Court that Respondents Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Appeal filed on February 3, 2011(Exhibit G) by attorneys DiMuro, Collyer, Weiser with the Supreme Court of Virginia. Page 2 Paragraph 2 States Here, Petitioner has failed to ensure that the record contains either transcripts or a written statement of facts. This statement is very
25

disingenuous of the three (3) attorneys along with Defendant Ilona a lawyer (officer of the Court) who had been representing herself. Fraud on the Court, purposely misleading the Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia.

The word Frivolous, the Sanctions (which the bills include ex-parte communication between Judges chambers and Defendants attorneys which they are charging Plaintiff for, along with court costs to include the time that when the Judge called roll Plaintiff stood up and said ready to go Defendants said we prefer to be last by all appearance this had been agreed upon prior to court, the court room was in lock down when the case was heard last. The Sheriffs were not allowing any person into the Court room during the Motions hearing. Not allowing Plaintiff to call her witness to the stand, taking away Plaintiffs right to file documents with the court were all willful acts that were malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless to intimidate Plaintiff. On around October 11, 2012 Plaintiff went to the Clerks office in the City of Alexandria to confirm Plaintiffs file was in Order. Plaintiff found the Exhibits that the Judge had ordered into record where not in the file. When Plaintiff questioned it Judges Chambers informed the Clerks office after about 45 miniutes that Judge Clark was on the bench Plaintiff would need to come back. Plaintiff went to the 4th floor to find that was a lie. A clerk from Judges Chamber came down claiming she had been in court on September 26, 2012 and

26

1. The Judge never had them on the bench which is unture how would the Judge have them if they hadnt been on the bench and he hadnt received them in court? 2. They were never put into evidence - Judge Clark very clearly asked Defendants lawyers if they had objections and niether attorney nor defendant whom is a lawyer and was in the court room had an issue with them being entered on the record. 3. Then it was Plaintiff could check the transcripts and they would say that they were never entered into the record ( which means to Plaintiff the transcripts have been tampered with) 4. Prior to leaving the court house Sheriff Kapetanis of the Alexandria Sheriffs office escorted Plaintiff back into the Court house where Plaintiff requested the notebooks back from Defendants lawyers if they didnt wish to have them - They both in agreement informed Plaintiff they needed them as they had been entered into the record as evidence. Plaintiff walked away agreeing with them. The Clerk from Judges chambers then gave Plaintiff the choice of taking Plaintiffs Exhibits or they would be destroyed On October 13, 2012 in the Mail Plaintiff received a Box which has not been opened from the Circuit Court of Alexandria. It was x-rayed to show the notebook and evidence that was entered into court on September 26, 2012. The Supreme Court should check the file of Plaintiff to insure that her Statement of Facts filed on November 20, 2012 along with the documents that were presented and accepted into Court record on September 26, 2012. Pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court of
27

Virignia. The filing was done with permission from Judge Clark as Ordered by him on September 26, 2012.

ARGUMENT
The Constitution of the United States A fundamental, guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious. The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" ( 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government. The Trial Court on September 26, 2012 in its Order of sanctions under
8.01 271. due to Janice in her filing for re-opening the case showed cause

that Appellees lied in Court on September 7, 2007 when Ilona Claimed she had not been served. (Exhibit A) That Appellees Ilona an officer of the
28

Court lied when she claimed 75% ownership of property misleading the court in her Counter Claim Cross Complaint (Exhibit D). That the Judge did not allow Plaintiff to call her witness, defendant Ilona to under oath confirm Plaintiffs assertions. RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Truthfulness In Statements to Others In the course or 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 Plaintiff Ilona July 7, 1990 fraudulently with malleus to protect herself and her law firm lied to Plaintiff about the money that had been stolen out of the Sonia Grenadier Trust. Defendant Ilona with malleus to intimidate Plaintiff sent Letters and e-mails (Exhibits B, C, D, E, F).

In Dealing with Unrepresented Persons (a) In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonable should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyers role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct misunderstandings. (b) A lawyer shall not give advice to a person who is not represented by a lawyer, other than the advice to secure counsel, if the interests of such person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interest of the client. ( Ilona Defendant officer of the court in Exhibit B, D, E, F threaten Plaintiff she had better drop this case)
29

Defendant Ilona an officer of the court in July of 1990 and for several years acted as Plaintiffs lawyer in negotiating a loan to Defendant David to protect Defendant Ilonas illegal and unprofessional behavior in the theft of funds from the Sonia Grenadier Trust. Supreme Court Rule 17.1-105(B) provides: If all the judges of any court of record are so situated in respect to any case, civil or criminal, pending in their court as to render it improper, in their opinion, for them to preside at the trial, unless the cause or proceeding is removed, as provided by law, they shall enter the fact of record and the clerk of the court shall at once certify the same to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall designate a judge of some other court of record or a retired judge of any such court to preside at the trial of such case. In September, 2007, Plaintiff was informed that all judges of the Circuit Court recused themselves because of their close relationship with opposing parties and counsel. Nonetheless, as early as December, 2007, the Circuit Court appointed various out of Circuit judges itself to adjudicate the matter, including Judge McGrath to hear the case, instead of following Rule 17.1-105(b). Thus, this Judge lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should have taken responsibility to appoint a judge to hear the case in September, 2007. Plaintiff learned of this in June, 2010 and preserved this point in her July 13, 2010 motion and August 4, 2010 addendum filed before the Circuit Court.
30

Here, not only has the Rule been violated, but the Circuit Court acted with impropriety and created the appearance of impropriety by having judges who recused themselves (or were required to recuse themselves) because of personal relationships with Defendants select the out of circuit judge, instead of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court making the selection. Even, assuming, for argument, the Judges did not formally recuse themselves, if they were required to recuse themselves, they were not permitted to circumvent the procedures of Rule 17.1-105(b) by selecting an out of Circuit Court judge themselves. This violation is particularly egregious when the interests of a per se party suing an attorney are at stake. That Judge Clark through his actions of recuing himself in the past and being put on notice Plaintiff planned on including him in a suit for his actions in collusion for preventing Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights to Due Process. CONCLUSION That Janice should be granted a new trial as she has not had her day in court Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. That sanctions against Plaintiff should be dismissed due to the Judge not having Jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff had proven her case in documents submitted into Court when Motion filed on or around July 26, 2012 and in Court on September 26, 2012. That the Les Pendens should stay if full force and effect as Plaintiff has proven in documents submitted on September 26, 2012 that Appellees without punitive damages owe Plaintiff close to Three (3) million dollars for their actions.
31

The petition for appeal should be granted. All prior decisions and the judgment against Plaintiff should be vacated and the Chief Justice should reassign the case for trial before a Judge outside of the Circuit Court, in a new Venue. The Plaintiff also prays the Supreme Court appoints a Special Grand Jury to look into the actions of the Judges, the elected officials, and the government officials that have by appearance acted outside of their judicial or elected powers trying to prevent Plaintiff from her birth right as an American citizen the Basic Liberty of Due Process. 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 Justice has taken that this heavy burden lies on your shoulders to protect the Rights of each and every Virginia Citizen. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Wolk Grenadier Pro se Appllant 15 West Spring Street Alexandria, Virginia 22301 703-623-9655 jwgrenadier3@aol.com CERTIFICATE
Pursuant to Rule 5:17, I hereby certify that The appellant is Janice Wolk Grenadeir pro se 15 West Spring Street Alexandria, Virginia 22301 202-368-7178 jwgrenadier3@aol.com The appellee is Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman, Esquire & Grenadier Investment Co Ltd was represented by Grenadier, Anderson, Starace & Duffett till
32

around May of 2010 the following counsel started representing Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman, Esq and Grenadier Investment Co Ltd Dimuro Ginsburg PC John Tran Esquire Benard J. Dimuro, Esquire 908 King Street Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia, 22314 703-684-4333 The appellee is David Mark Grenadier represented by: Michael J. Weiser, Esquire 510 King Street Suite 416 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 A copy of this Petition for Appeal was mailed to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Virginia on December 24, 2012 and mailed to counsel for Appellees.

Appellant desire to state orally to a panel of this Court the reasons why the Petition for Appeal should be granted and wish to do so in person. This 24th day of December

Janice Wolk Grenadier

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67