divorce rehearing - reconsideration v 3a final of memo of law sept 30, 2014

8/11/2019 Divorce Rehearing - Reconsideration v 3A Final of Memo of Law Sept 30, 2014

1/12


2/12

2

Plaintiff. The Truth and the facts are Plaintiff from around October 1986 worked as a partner and

put money into the properties without being paid back for her time or financial investment.

The concealment of marital assets during the divorce proceeding has also given rise to tort actions. Swain v.

Swain, 576 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991); Garri ty v. Garri ty, 399 Mass. 367, 504 N.E.2d 617 (1987).

But seeBeers v. Beers,724 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 5

th

DCA 1998); Neder lander v. Nederlander, 205 Mich. App.123, 517 N.W.2d 768 (1994); Smith v. Smith, 113 N.C. app. 410, 438 S.E.2d 457 (1994); Schleuter v.

Schleuter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998); Gardner v. Gardner, 175 Wis. 2d 420, 499 N.W.2d 266 (Ct. App.

1993). That Divorce attorney Ilona Grenadier Heckman with knowledgeable intend to defraud

Plaintiff used an attorney not licensed in Virginia to do a Liquidation Agreement. That Divorce

Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman knew that Plaintiff needed to sign such agreement.

That Ilona and David have hid the documents from loans and Real Estate from Plaintiff to conspire

against Plaintiff.This is and was a civil conspiracy and Civil RICO.

Civil Conspiracy

As acceptance of economic torts becomes more prevalent, plaintiffs have been casting the net wider to sue

not only offending spouse but also those who aided the offending spouse in the fraud. One possible avenue

of recovery is civil conspiracy. Key to this cause of action is a defendants substantial assistance in a plan to

defraud, with the knowledge that such assistance is contributing to a common tortious plan. Thus, the

doctrine is reserved for application to facts which manifest a common plan to commit a tortious act where

the participants know of the plan and its purpose and take affirmative steps to encourage the achievement of

the result.

The most recent case to allow a claim against an ex-spouse and a third party for fraud isBrown v. Managed

Care, Inc., No. M1999-02551-COA-R3-CV (Tennessee Court of Appeals, February 1, 2000) (unreported). In

this case, the divorced mother of a minor child claimed that her former husband and his employer conspired

to fraudulently understate the husbands income, in order to defeat her attempts to have his child support

obligation increased to an appropriate amount. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants,

and the appellate court reversed. The court first reiterated the elements of conspiracy:

Our courts have recognized a cause of action for a civil conspiracy to defraud. The Court described the

elements of the tort and what it takes to prove it in the following manner: A conspiracy to defraud on the

part of two or more persons means a common purpose, supported by a concerted action to defraud, that each

has the intent to do it, and that it is common to each of them, and that each has the understanding that the

other has that purpose. The agreement need not be formal, the understanding may be a tacit one, and it is not

essential that each conspirator have knowledge of the details of the conspiracy.


3/12

3

(Citations omitted.) See alsoRestatement (Second) of Torts 876(b) (1977) (a person may be liable in tort if

he knows that the ... conduct [of another person] constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial

assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself.).

The court then concluded that the divorced mother stated a cause of action:

If we take the allegations of the plaintiffs to be true (as we are obligated to do when reviewing a summary

judgment motion), then the defendants conspired to understate Mr. Barenkamps income from the very

moment his employment with Birman & Associates began. The acts performed in furtherance of the

conspiracy included the issuance of payroll checks to Kathy Barenkamp and of bonus checks to William

Barenkamp, as well as attempts to throw Charlotte Brown off the track when she called Birman & Associates

to confirm the circumstances of William Barenkamps employment. But all these acts would be of no avail if

Mr. Barenkamp had testified truthfully as to his income. We are unwilling to hold that the very act required

to consummate the fraud also had the effect of immunizing the defendants from liability for it.

Thus, where a spouse and another person act in concert for the common purpose ofdefrauding the other spouse, an action for conspiracy will lie.

Conspiracy was also accepted in Dale v. Dale, 66 Cal. App. 4th1172, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513 (1998), where the

wife sued for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, constructive fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation,

conversion, conspiracy, fraudulent conveyance, constructive trust, and declaratory relief. In this case, the

wife claimed that after the husband was served with divorce papers, he and his bookkeeper withhold from

billing patients, withheld monies received as payments to the accounts receivable, falsified ledgers, financial

statements, and income tax returns, and otherwise acted in concert to artificially reduce the value of the

husbands medical practice. The California appellate court upheld the wifes claims.AccordLiles v. Liles,

289 Ark. 159, 711 S.W.2d 447 (1986) (wife awarded damages for husbands attorneys fraud and

misrepresentation in wifes suit to set aside property settlement agreement); Carney v. Wohl, 785 S.W.2d 630

(Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (upholding wifes claim of fraudulent misrepresentation against husband and husbands

father); Vickery v. Vickery, 1996 WL 255755 (Tex. Ct. App., December 5, 1996) (wife awarded $9 million

against husband for fraudulently procuring divorce and marital settlement agreement, and $450,000 against

husbands attorney), affirmed over dissent, Vickery v. Vickery, 999 S.W.2d 342 (Tex. 1999).

That when Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman Intervened into the Divorce in order to

protect her interests in properties, it became clear the actions of Ilona & David were and are

actions that were knowledgeable actions since October of 1986 to defraud Plaintiff.


4/12

4

Another possible avenue for recovery against a spouse and a third party for economic fraud is the RacketeerInfluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-64 (Supp. 1999). Claims under RICOin the divorce context are also scarce, but not unheard of.

The strongest RICO case isPerlberger v. Perlberger, 1998 WL 76310, 1998.EPA.1313 (E.D. Pa. February

24, 1998). In this case, a woman filed a civil RICO claim against her ex-husband, his law practice associates,

and his accountants for allegedly participating in a fraudulent scheme to conceal his true income during the

divorce action. According to the wife, the fraudulent scheme began in 1986 when the husband decided todivorce the wife. He devised a scheme whereby he would initiate an extra-marital affair for the purpose of

shielding his assets and income from scrutiny during divorce. The husband, an attorney, began an affair with

a client, and purchased a home in her name. He then left his law firm and instead of using his own assets (a

capital account the former firm owed him), he used his girlfriends assets to establish a credit line for a new

firm. He was then able to argue that his new firm was not a marital asset. He also paid his girlfriend an

inflated salary, and had another attorney, Rothenberg, hold all the assets to the new firm. The court stated:

Here, Plaintiffs RICO claim is based on Defendants alleged mail and wire fraud. Although the alleged

fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the Defendants may be accurately described as garden variety fraud,

such a characterization is not fatal to Plaintiffs RICO claim under the current state of the law.

Defendants next argue that they have not found any cases in Pennsylvania in which civil RICO has been

used to attack a divorce decree, child support order, or alimony award. (Accountant Defs. Mot. at 3.)

Although the Court also has not found any such Pennsylvania cases, the Court has found a number of Federal

cases where courts have entertained civil RICO claims relating to family law matters. E.g., Grimmett v.

Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 1996); Calcasieu Marine Nat. Bank v. Grant, 943 F.2d 1453 (5th Cir. 1991).

With Tabas as guidance and with the decisions of other courts in mind, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiffs

RICO claim on policy grounds.

Perlbergerrepresents a small but growing handful of cases where a spouse asserts civil RICO in the divorce

context. SeeSmith v. Johnson, 173 F.3d 430 (6thCir. 1999) (unpublished table decision);DeMauro v.

DeMauro, 115 F.3d 94 (1stCir. 1997); Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9thCir. 1996); Calcasieu Marine

National Bank v. Grant, 943 F.2d 1453 (5thCir. 1991);Evans v. Dale, 896 F.2d 975 (5thCir. 1990);DuBroff

v. DuBroff, 833 F.2d 557 (5thCir. 1987);Dibbs v. Gonsalves, 921 F. Supp. 44 (D.P.R. 1996);Reynolds v.

Condon, 908 F. Supp. 1494 (N.D. Iowa 1995); Streck v. Peters, 855 F. Supp. 1156 (D. Haw. 1994);Hibbard

v. Benjamin, No. 90-1-361-WF, 1992 WL 300838 (D. Mass. Sept. 21, 1992); Capasso v. Cigna Insurance

Co., 765 F. Supp. 839 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

That no property settlement when many parcels of Real Estate were owned and that theDefendant falsified his ownership in Bankruptcy court with the collusion of Divorce Lawyer Ilona

Grenadier Heckman. That the claim in Bankruptcy court was that with no Property Settlement all

Real Estate unless otherwise stated was marital Property. Since there was no Property Settlement

and Plaintiff had taken an active role in management of Real Estate owned by GIC / Monroe Ave /

Southway Terrace then that should be considered 5050 as 28 East Bellefonte was even when


5/12

5

the Deed read 5050. That the collusion of Mother & Son whom also created a Fraud through the

Mothers Law Firm Grenadier Law et al with the theft of over $95,000 from the Sonia Grenadier

Trust. That the Scheme left Plaintiff without properties that depending on how the accounting and

notes are counted put over $100,000 in cash towards GIC / Monroe Ave / Southway Terrace. That

there is no question that the documents, letters from Mother / Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman

shows the expected involvement in properties by Plaintiff for no fee.

That Mother and son were aware of and tried to hide from Plaintiff the part of the enterprise that

was rightfully hers. This was and will be demonstrated in the Loan documents with Plaintiffs

signature and that the Properties were held in Trust by Divorce lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman

who with knowledgeable intend to cover up who had an interest in the properties signed most

documents as Trustee. The collusion / enterprise was with the intend to defraud and manipulate

Plaintiff.

That when Divorce Attorney Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman at the time of the divorce had

30 years experience and today has over 40 years knew the law and did not Intervene to insure

that there was a property settlement to protect her interests yet since that time she has bullied,

lied in court, lied in court documents, lied in Bankruptcy court involved with her attorneys at lying in

court, lying in court documents to the Supreme Court of Virginia. All Ilonas actions were with the

knowledgably intend inclusion of David to defraud Plaintiff.

That Rule 1:1 is not enforceable under the Due Process when the appearance of an inequitable

Judgment But, here we dont have an inequitable judgment we have no Property Settlement

along with statements of the Defendants attorney that without a Property Settlement the property

of 28 East Bellefonte should be considered Marital property and that should be split 50/ 50 ignoring

the how the Deed is worded. This statement in the Bankruptcy Court was supported by Divorce

attorney Ilona Grenadier Heckman who has intervened into this case to further defraud Plaintiff of

her rights to Properties that should be included in a property settlement. The properties include

where owned at the time of the Separation and the illegal Liquidation Agreement done betweenDavid Grenadier and Ilona Grenadier to defraud Plaintiff of her rightful ownership due to her

financial and management work of properties which letters and other documents will show:

1. Sonia Grenadier Trust

1. Note $ 30,000.00 /10% Interest $ 307,576.25


6/12

6

(Prevented Plaintiff from losing her Law License and going to

Jail as Jim Arthur did 1993.

2. Clients which Defendant loss due to the Note(10% int) $2,471,940.78

Plaintiff demanded acting as Defendants lawyer that she

Had to give up her clientthe very min cost to that was

The listings for the new homes (todays value with interest)

2. Real Estate1. Bellefonte AvePersonal ownership 50% (10% int w/out my GIC 24.5%) $ 504,003.25

2. GICProperties at least 24.5% $3,000.000.00(accounting of sales, rents, depreciation etc needed) TBD

Properties located in the City of Alexandria zip codes 22301, 22305, 22314

1623 Francis Hammond

16 West Bellefonte Ave

44 East Taylor Run Pkwy

1813 Leslie Ave

54 East Taylor Run Pkwy

61 East Taylor Run Plwy

33 South Gordon

2943 Sycamore Ave

2945 Sycamore Ave

415 East Delray Ave

224 Guthrie Ave

322 E. Hume Ave

710 Four Mile Rd

707 Four Mile Rd

713 Four Mile Rd

715 Four Mile Rd

628 Notaene Dr

636 Notabene Dr

638 Notabene Dr

3. Southway / SouthHamptonTerrace at least 24.5 % $3,100,000.00

( an accounting for rents, depreciation, income etc needed) TBD

The apartments have Rental income of approx. $95.000 monthly

2014 Market Value $12.3 million Rental Inc. mthly PP $ 2,940,000

4. 404 E Monroe Aveat least 24.5% $ 500,000.00(an accounting for rents income, etc) TBD

2014 Market Value $2,4 million Rental Inc.mthly $ 11,000 PP 400.000.

BankruptcyDefendant would not have been in so is owed legal fees and expenses

1. Legal Fees $ 319,613.81

2. Expenses / Damages TBD

3. Stolen Car May 2013 David and Ilona sold car w/out Title or copy Title TBD

Further this is an on going Fraud by Divorce lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman with the

recent Sale of a Property called Bristow Road that she again signed as Trustee, yet she had

stolen from Sonia Grenadier the mother of Judge Albert Grenadier.

The memo randum Further goes on to say When reviewing a trial courts decision on

appeal , we view the evidence in the l ight of the mos t favorable to the prevai l ing party

granting it the benefit of reasonable inferences The Prevai l ing Party never w ent to co urt or

f i led a B r ief wi th this cou rt . Favoritism and Cronyism was used in the back room decision


7/12

7

making by a Judge who did not have Jurisdiction. Statement is bias and shows the possible

discrimination of the court by ignoring the facts and the basis for an appeal.

The case was decided in a back room by Judge Clark who does not have personal Jurisdiction. Tha

Defendant has filed a suit in United States District Court For the District of Columbia that he is a

defendant in for:

VERIFIED COMPLAINT / CONSPIRACYNOT A DOMESTIC PROBLEM AN AMERICAN PROBLEM

TREASON BY JUDGES, LAWYERS, ELECTED OFFICIALS, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, STATE EMPLOYEESTO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTSTitle 18 U.S. Code 241 & 242; Title 42 U.S. Code 1981 & 1983ILLEGEALACTIONS - Attempt to harm Plaintiff and her Girls through DRUGS, RAPE & SLANDER of Plaintiff to prevent DueProcess, Judicial Misconduct, Criminal Misconduct, Discrimination for Religious, Social, Economic, Hierarch, GangType Behavior Similar to the Klue Klux Klan, , Tampering with Evidence, Mail Fraud, Violating the Law and the Rules

of the Supreme courts, Violation of the Judicial Cannons, Obstruction of Justice, Fraud on the Court,

Judge Clark has subject-matter jurisdiction & territorial jurisdiction but not personal Jurisdiction.

Judge Clark took the place of Judge Donald Haddock (Best friend Judge Donald Kent who works

with the Virginia Legislator as to which Judges are approved) in January of 2012 as by all

appearance as a Thank you to Judge Haddock he refused to hear motions appropriately put on

the docket. The motions pertained to a Direct order from Supreme Court Justice Cynthia Kinser

whom had chosen Judge Potter from Prince William County to assure and assist the appearance

of Defendant and her witness in front of the Grand Jury to ask for a Special Grand Jury to look into

the discrepancy in Defendants case. Judge Haddock had stated in Court he was afraid that

Plaintiff would be talking about him and his actions in the Grand Jury. That Judge Clark has been

asked to recuse himself since the appearance of recusing himself in January of 2012. The Circuit

Court Judges of Alexandria recused themselves in the case of Julian Dawkins due to the

relationship of Judge Dawkins, they have now recused themselves in the Charles Severence case

due to the relationship of Ruth Ann Ladto being the daughter of Judge Giammitorio and the brother

of Judge Bob Giammittorio. Yet they are hearing this case and imposing irrational and unfair

Orders against Plaintiff. David Grenadier is the son of Judge Albert Grenadier and Ilona Grenadier

Heckman the widow of Judge Albert Grenadiers. That the letter written with an apology by Judge

Kloch states The appearance of Justice is just as important as Justice itself. In October of 2012Judge Clark refused to recuse himself and awarded legal fees riddled with ex parte

communications in signed affidavit. He has allowed and supported attorneys lying in court, lying in

court documents. That in October of 2012 documents that had been appropriately filed in the

courts backing everything Defendant has said were held in Judges Chambers for 2 weeks. The

documents when Defendant went to check on her file were not in the file and when Defendant


8/12

8

asked where they were a representative from Judges chambers came down and said take them or

we will throw them out. On October 13, 2012 Defendant received her documents along with an

Order signed by Judge Clark, Judge Kemler who had recused herself in September of 2007 then

formally in October of 2011, Judge Dawkins who should have recused himself in the past formally

recused himself in October 2011 but, both Judges signed the Order dated October 12, 2012 that

reads Defendant is not allowed to file in the Circuit Court any documents pertaining to CHO10654

without permission, for only that case. Defendant still has the box of evidence unopened to be

opened in front of a Jury.

The City of Alexandria then to intimidate Defendantfurther filed charges against Janice for a

gutter hanging from the earth quake and for allowing a friend to park an RV in her drive way which

was totally legal. That Ben DiMuro in collusion with Commonwealth Attorney RandySengel

used Detective Pax of the City of Alexandria police to intimidate Janice with Extortion

chargeswhich she proved she was retaliation and retribution for telling the Truth and was owed

the money.

In March of 2011 when JWG was on Travelthe police, fire, ambulance came to 15 W. Spring St.

to break down the doorluckily Defendants neighbors were home and were allowed to use a key

to let them in. Defendant was supposed to be dead in the home? Several neighbors can attest to

this. There is no police, fire or ambulance report on this. When that didnt work to intimidate and

scare JWG off, December of 2012 Mark/Michael Stuart as a friend of Ilonas was hired to drug

Janice and get inappropriate picturesor to rape one of the girlsor to plant drugs on one of thegirls or in their home.

When that didnt work December of 2013 Ilonas BFF Loretta Lax Miller aka Muggy Cat aka

BillySullivan presidential candidate for 2016 in collusion sent this e-mail and started a blog riddled

with lies about Janice. This e-mail states Ilonas hate feelings about JWG being Catholic: Me and

My family had nothing to do with you and your girls because you raised them Catholic direct quote

from Ilona in May of 2008. Which is documented in the Appendix Exhibit 4No 7 and Exhibit 5 A

& B, Exhibit 6. There are several other Hate emails from the Ilona Grenadier GANG which are

actions similar to the Klu Klux Klan.


9/12

9

That Ilona Grenadier Heckman a professional Divorce Lawyer and founding partner of Grenadier Starace Duf

Kiesler practicing law for over 40 years knew what she was doing when she used Neil Gurvitch a lawyer not

licensed in Virginia to do a Liquidation agreement that needed Janice Wolk Grenadiers signature for the subs

amount of money that Janice Wolk Grenadier put into the properties owned during the marriage of David Gren

& Janice Wolk Grenadier. Ilona Grenadier at several points during the marriage acted as an attorney for Jani

David and even wanting to control and have things her way wrote a property settlement. That Janice was

manipulated with knowledgably intend to harm by David and Ilona.

It is now known the marriage was a scheme to defraud. It was admitted David never loved Janice

and Janice was just right for the picture and David never wanted children. The knowledgeable

intend to defraud was always there, but the evidence and truth of the extend did not come out until

the talk of the Sale of 11713 Bristow Road, Manassas Va. April of 2014. The property sold by all

appearance with a cloud on the Title, which makes this a continuing Fraud from on or around

February 14, 1986 when Ilona Grenadier knowingly started with her lies to defraud Janice. That

Ilona admitted it was not David who stole the money which only left her to have stolen it from the

Sonia Grenadier Trust.

That a Divorce Attorney with Knowledgeable intend to defraud and at her finger tips Judges with

Chief Judge Haddocks declaration You cannot get a fair trial, we LOVE Ilona in 2008 after he

had chosen Judges that were his and Ilonas close friends. That Judge Clarks orders are and

should be VOID due to discrimination, unfairness, bias, prejudice and retaliation and

retribution for telling of the TRUTH which in America should be your best defense.


10/12

10

Plaintiffs have been discriminated against and treated with unfairness, bias and prejudice by this Court

and the opposing counsel. An uninterested, lay person, would question the partiality and neutrality of this

Court. 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.I n re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136

(1955) No man in this country is so high thathe is above the law. No off icer of the law may set that

law at defi ance with impun ity. Al l the off icers of the government f rom 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) 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, I n 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. Vi rginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5

L.Ed 257 (1821)

Further the appearance is Fraud on the court by Lawyers and JudgesWhenever any officer of

the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court. In

Bull och v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated Fraud upon the court is

fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent

documents, false statements or perjury. It is where the court ora member is corrupted or influenced or

influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial functionthus where the impartial

functions of the court have been directly corrupted.

Fraud upon the court has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to embrace that species of

fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so

that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that

are presented for adjudication. Kenner v. C.I.R.,387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moores Federal Practice, 2d ed.,

p. 512, 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stateda decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in

essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.

Further the Memorandum goes on to say A pro se l i t igant appearing is no less bound by

the rules of procedure and substantive law then a defendant represented by counsel


11/12

11

Plaintiff has followed the Rules as the docket shows. It is the Defendants whom have ignored the

rules and the Laws of the Virginia Supreme Court, of the United States Constitution and the

Virginia Constitution. This statement is bias and slanderous to the Plaintiff.

That Judge Clark did not have Jurisdiction in his Order of October 3, 2013. That Judge Clark is

tainted per his actions as is the other Judges in the Circuit Court of Alexandria against Appellant.

That Judge Clark has ignored his Oath of Office, Cannons of Judicial conduct for the State of

Virginia and Rules of Professional Conduct of the Virginia State Barsince being sworn in by all

appearance a Pay Back for votes for him to tally more votes than the other applicants for position

as Judge in the Circuit Court of Alexandria.

The Facts are very clear in the documents filed and the appropriate fees Paid:

1. On or around June 26, 2013 through e-mail and phone messages Plaintiff tried to contact Defendants lawyerand was ignored that Plaintiff was re-opening divorce for Fraud.

2. On or around July 12, 2013 Subpoena was filed in the COA Clerks office w/cert of service to Defendants3. On or around July 15, 2013 Yoav Katz / Katz & Co. was properly served w/cert of service to Defendants4. On or around July 16, 2013 an Affidavit of service was filed in COA w/ cert of service to Defendants5. On or around Aug 19, 2013 a Motion to Compel was filed in the COA w/cert of service to Defendants6. On or around Aug 19, 2013 Plaintiff filed for Production of Documents7. On or around Aug 26, 2013 Defendant decided to Respond approx. 60 days later8. On or around Defendants mother ( Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman widow of the

late Judge Albert Grenadier and a lawyer/Founding Partner of Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffett &Kiesler in the City of Alexandria. Represented as a Lawyer in the Washingtonian as a Big Player withthe Old Boys Network.

The Defendant ignored with his lawyer all opportunities to object to the Reopening of the

Divorce, the Subpoena or to point out any deficiencies. The City of Alexandrias clerks office

questioned Plaintiff, reviewed all documents prior to stamping them in, the Clerks confirmed

Plaintiff had the right to file in her Divorce case. The Clerks office after what was around hour of

waiting prior to being able to file, believes the Clerks office conferred with the Judges chambers..

The law is very clear a pro se litigant is to be given equal treatment if not special treatment,

especially in a case where the intervening Person is a lawyer and has the financial ability to

bring in as many powerful unscrupulous lawyers to defend her criminal actions.

"Pro se plaintiffs are often unfamiliar with the formalities of pleading requirements. Recognizing this,

the Supreme Court has instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to apply

a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in

reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel. See e.g., Hughes v. Rowe,449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173,

175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594,

595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); see also Elliott v. Bronson,872 F.2d 20,21 (2d Cir.1989)

(per curiam). In order to justify the dismissal of a pro se complaint, it must be " 'beyond doubt that the
http://supreme.justia.com/us/449/5/case.html#9http://supreme.justia.com/us/404/519/case.html#520http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/872/20/http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/872/20/http://supreme.justia.com/us/404/519/case.html#520http://supreme.justia.com/us/449/5/case.html#9


12/12

12

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " Haines v.

Kerner,404 U.S. at 521,92 S.Ct. at 594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99,

102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). 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) 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. Econom ou, 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 Pow el l , 428 US 465, 483 n 35, 96 S. Ct 3037, 49 L Ed. 2d 1067

(1976)

This is being restated because it is important that court recognizes the discrepancies in the Circuit

Court of Alexandria in Fairness to the Plaintiff.

Appellant desire to state orally to a panel of this Court the reasons why the Petition for

Appeal should be granted and wishes to do so in person.

Respectfully Submitted,

September 29, 2014Janice Wolk GrenadierPro se Appllant15 West Spring StreetAlexandria, Virginia 22301202-368-7178

[email protected]

CERTIFICATEPursuant to Rule 5:17, I hereby certify that a copy was delivered to Bryan Porter Commonwealth Attorney and Lana Manitta [email protected],Rich RosenthalBrincefield Manitta Dzubin & Kroeger, LLP- 201 North Union Street, Suite 240,Alexandria, VA 22314 - Phone: 703.299.3440. Total word Count 7,909. Appellant desire to state orally to a panel of thisCourt the reasons why the Petition for Appeal should be granted and wishes to do so in person.

This 29 day of September 2014

Janice Wolk GrenadierPro se Appellant

15 West Spring Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22301

202-368-7178
http://supreme.justia.com/us/404/521/http://supreme.justia.com/us/355/41/case.html#45mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://supreme.justia.com/us/355/41/case.html#45http://supreme.justia.com/us/404/521/