UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA

Janice Wolk Grenadier Case NO.

15 W. Spring St. VA Code 8.01 428 Fraud on the Court
Alexandria, VA 22301
Plaintiff / Pro Se VA Code 18.2-434 Perjury

v. CIVIL RIGHTS Title 18 U.S. Code 241 & 242; Title 42 U.S. Code 1981
Judge James C. Clark & 1983, 1985, 1986\
520 King Street 4th Floor Fraudulent Concealment
Alexandria, VA 22314
Defendant in his Personal Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C.
and Professional Capacity 1962);

Libel and Slander

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Janice Wolk Grenadier Pro Se: files this Complaint under her rights in the Virginia
Constitution, the United States Constitution, for Virginia and Federal Criminal acts and actions with
knowledgeable intend to physically and mentally harm Janice Wolk Grenadier -- for allowing Malicious
Prosecution by Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman to Cover Up further obstruction of Justice for
FRIENDSHIP/ and or FINANCIAL GAIN of Burke and Herbert Bank and Lawyers, Janice demands
injunction for relief under VA Code 8.01 428 Fraud on the Court by Judge James C. Clark. In the
following 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

That this suit arises from actions of a corruptness in the City of Alexandria court through Judge James
Clark who has raped Janice Wolk Grenadiers rights for the chilling to access to the courts and Due

1
Process, Fairness in the Courts. Damages under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth and
Fourteen Amendments along with denial of an impartial tribunal. Further for her Virginia
Constitutional Rights under the Bill of Rights and V1 Judicial Rights:
Virginia Article I. Bill of Rights
A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign
powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

Section 1. Equality and rights of men. - That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain
inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;
namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety.

Section 2. People the source of power - That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that
magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. Government instituted for common benefit. - That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the
common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government,
that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the
danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a
majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner
as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. No exclusive emoluments or privileges; offices not to be hereditary. - That no man, or set of men,
is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which
not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

Section 5. Separation of legislative, executive, and judicial departments; periodical elections. - That the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Commonwealth should be separate and distinct; and that the members
thereof may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods,
be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by
regular elections, in which all or any part of the former members shall be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws may direct.

Section 6. Free elections; consent of governed. - That all elections ought to be free; and that all men, having
sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot
be taxed, or deprived of, or damaged in, their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives
duly elected, or bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good.

Section 7. Laws should not be suspended. - That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any
authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

Section 8. Criminal prosecutions. - That in criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of
his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, and to call for evidence in his favor, and he shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found
guilty. He shall not be deprived of life or liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, nor be compelled in
any criminal proceeding to give evidence against himself, nor be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
Laws may be enacted providing for the trial of offenses not felonious by a court not of record without a jury, preserving the right
of the accused to an appeal to and a trial by jury in some court of record having original criminal jurisdiction. Laws may also
provide for juries consisting of less than twelve, but not less than five, for the trial of offenses not felonious, and may classify
such cases, and prescribe the number of jurors for each class.

2
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 (8-A).

Section 9. Prohibition of excessive bail and fines, cruel and unusual punishment, suspension of
habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws. - That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended unless when, in cases of invasion or rebellion, the public safety may require; and that the General Assembly shall not
pass any bill of attainder, or any ex post facto law.

Section 10. General warrants of search or seizure prohibited. - That general warrants, whereby an officer or
messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or
persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and
ought not to be granted.

Section 11. Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking or damaging of private property;
prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases. - That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or
property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts;
and that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or
national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination.
That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought
to be held sacred. The General Assembly may limit the number of jurors for civil cases in courts of record to not less than five.
That the General Assembly shall pass no law whereby private property, the right to which is fundamental, shall be damaged or
taken except for public use. No private property shall be damaged or taken for public use without just compensation to the owner
thereof. No more private property may be taken than necessary to achieve the stated public use. Just compensation shall be no
less than the value of the property taken, lost profits and lost access, and damages to the residue caused by the taking. The terms
"lost profits" and "lost access" are to be defined by the General Assembly. A public service company, public service corporation,
or railroad exercises the power of eminent domain for public use when such exercise is for the authorized provision of utility,
common carrier, or railroad services. In all other cases, a taking or damaging of private property is not for public use if the
primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic
development, except for the elimination of a public nuisance existing on the property. The condemnor bears the burden of
proving that the use is public, without a presumption that it is.
The amendment ratified November 6, 2012, and effective January 1, 2013In the heading of the section, after "taking", added
"or damaging". In paragraph one, after "contracts", deleted ", nor any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged

3
for public uses, without just compensation, the term 'public uses' to be defined by the General Assembly". Added a new
paragraph after paragraph two.

Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition. - That the
freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic
governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse
of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power. - That a well regulated militia,
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous
to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 14. Government should be uniform. - That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore,
that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the
limits thereof.

Section 15. Qualities necessary to preservation of free government. - That no free government, nor the
blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and
virtue; by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles; and by the recognition by all citizens that they have duties as well as
rights, and that such rights cannot be enjoyed save in a society where law is respected and due process is observed.
That free government rests, as does all progress, upon the broadest possible diffusion of knowledge, and that the Commonwealth
should avail itself of those talents which nature has sown so liberally among its people by assuring the opportunity for their
fullest development by an effective system of education throughout the Commonwealth.

Section 15-A. Marriage. - That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized
by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or
recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance,
or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership,
or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007Added a new section (15-A).

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion. - That religion or the duty which we owe to
our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and,
therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the
mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to
frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free
to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or
affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar
privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the
people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house
of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious
instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

Section 17. Construction of the Bill of Rights. - The rights enumerated in this Bill of Rights shall not be construed to
limit other rights of the people not therein expressed.
The Parties

1. Janice Wolk Grenadier is the x-wife of David Grenadier the son of Judge Albert Grenadier who
died in or around March of 1985 and the step son of Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman

4
 founding partner of Grenadier Starace Duffett & Levi. Party to the Old Boys Network. That
Janice a Pro Se Litigant has been forced by the courts and the system to defend herself and all
pleadings should be judged lenity as DEMANDED by the Supreme Court of the United States of
America. That Plaintiff can not even ask an attorney for any advice as she is forced to sign under
penalty and perjury that she has not.
2. Judge James Clark former lawyer in the City of Alexandria. Since being sworn in on or around
January of 2012 as a Judge has violated all of Janice Wolk Grenadiers American rights as a born
citizen of the United States. First to help Judge Donald Haddock whom he replaced in the Cover
Up of the Criminal Spree of Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman, then to insure Senator
Mark Warners re-election with e-mails not being reveled prior to his election, and then by all
appearance for past client Burke & Herbert Bank. That Judge Clark as a judge as is taped states
very clearly he never received any money from Burke & Herbert Bank as a client he did everything
for them for friendship which is just as Bias as if it were for money under the Judicial Canons.

Statement of Facts

Defendant incorporates all documents filed in the above cases that are in connection with the above
cases.
1. Judge Clark in or around January 2012 after a tough fight was sworn in as the replacement
of Judge Donald Haddock. Without the support Of Judge Donald Haddock and best friend
Judge Donald Kent as reported in the news Judge Clark may not have been given the
Judgeship.
2. Judge Clark in January of 2012 on two occasions in Grand Jury Case No. M011001482
denied hearing Motions appropriately filed in the Circuit Court of Alexandria.
3. Judge Clark in October of 2012 as of May 19, 2016 when Plaintiff learned that Judge Clark
and his past law firm were TRUSTEEs on all Burke and Herbert loans. That the
appearance is indirectly or directly Judge James Clark and his law firm had a financial
benefit from Burke & Herbert Bank.
4. The Slippery Slope of one of a massive Cover up would begin:
5. 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
5
6. 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.
7. A suit by the City of Alexandria would be filed against Plaintiff on gutters that had separated
during the earth quake from Janice home.
8. A Website jwgrenadierisalair.blogspot.com would be created stating Janice was a homosexual
and the anti Crist.
9. The lawyers and others would torture Janice through e-mails for being Catholic

6
10. Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier was allowed to intervene into Plaintiffs Divorce Plaintiff
was denied all access to DISCOVERY, any fair and unbiased court hearings.
11. Lis Pendens were filed and lawyers given legal fees that were outrages and bundled, showing
that conversations about apparent illegal activity and Janice is suppose Ordered to pay fees
with no real DISCOVERY.
12. Judge James Clark illegally Jails Plaintiff: That Judge Clarks actions turned back time.
Giving me less rights then a slave. Taking someone under Title 42 US Code 1994
and Title 18 US Code 1581(a): Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of
PEONAGE, shall be fined under this title for imprisoned not more than 20 years or both.
That on 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.
13.That on November 12, 2014 when Judge James Clark was forced to release
Janice early from jail he turned to his BEST FRIEND lawyer Michael Weiser
and stated very clearly I am so sorry I have to let her out of Jail, I can not
collect your legal fees for you YOU will have to come back to get a
Judgement to date no such Judgement has been filed for.
14. By all appearance it was through the ORDERS of Judge James Clark Janice was to be
tortured in the City of Alexandria jail.
15.That in CASE NO. 1500-3661 filed by Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman for legal
fees that are not Judgements Judge James Clark has personally in Judges Chambers
chosen a Trustee, not giving Plaintiff any Discovery to show the TRUTH
16. But, that wasnt enough for Judge James Clark who is aware of complaints filed against him
that have been paid off by the Legislature to ignore it will be shown the JIRC is the
$602,000. SCAM on the Virginia People, only one of many by our Judiciary.
7
17. That Judge James Clark is aware of law suits he is include in a RICO in the USDC of VA
where good friend and owes Judge Kent Judge Lee has been able to force an appeal.
18. That Judge James Clark has let the attorneys know that they do not have to follow the law,
they can lie in his court room in documents et al
19. That the lawyers do not even have to file documents or show up in court as stated in this e-
mail and on June 8, 2016 where Ilonas lawyers did not show up and Relief of a subpoena was
granted.

20. That on May 19, 2016 the appearance of the Cover Up changed when Janice learned that Judge
Jamce C. Clark was the trustee on loans through Burke & Herbert Bank. That Judge James C. Clark
was aware by all appearance since October of 2012 that his past clients and good friends were
involved in the Criminal Spree of divorce lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman.
21. That Burke & Herbert and Land Carroll by appearance of trying to obstruct justice have shown the
connections between Judge James Clark and Burke & Herbert Bank.
22. That on June 8, 2016 Lawyer Heba Carter after filing to quash a Subpeona was a no show in Court.
The Judge Clark ignored all the rules and allowed his good friend Andrea Mosley speak for Heba
Carter.
23. That on June 22, 2016 Judge Clark in ignoring and refusing a trial, the Motion to Dismiss of Certain
time fild in April of 2016 properly filed and Motioned for April 27, 2016 and denied by Judge
James Clark due to no trial date. Judge James Clark stated very clearly that there was a trial date he

8
 would not hear a Motion to Dismiss or evidence of such. Judge Clark perjured himself and
Obstructed Justice one more time.
24. Judge James Clark and it is taped admitted to being along with Carter Land Trustee for every loan
that was made my Burke and Herbert Bank. That Carter Land and Judge James Clark never had
any financial gain. That Judge James Clark and Carter land did this for Friendship: which when
you look back at November 12, 2014 when he turned to lawyer Michael Weiser and stated I am so
sorry I cant collect your legal fees, I have to let her out of jail After illegally jailing Janice Wolk
Grenadier.
25. Judge James Clark has lied in court, Obstructed Justice, either does not know the law or does not
follow it when it concerns his FRIENDS.

Plaintiff Demands a Trial by Jury

And Claims the Following Criminal Acts and Actions by Judge James C. Clark
That all acts were done maliciously with knowledgeable criminal intent to harm
Janice Walk Grenadier and her girls and to protect others / his FRIENDS

. That no Plaintiff or Defendant can win when a Judge is ruling in Retaliation, Retribution, Bias,
Favoritism, and Cronyism or for or with a FINANCIAL CONFLICT NEWLY DISCOVERED. The
following are the conflicts that the above Judges have shown with the Judicial Canons: as has been shown
in documents filed with this court.

1. The Judges have violated Canon 1 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia and United States
of America in that they:
a. failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
b. failed to maintain and enforce standards of conduct for fellow judges, and officers of the court.
c. failed to observe minimal standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved.
d. failed to construe and apply the provisions of the Canons of Judicial Conduct to further their objectives.
e. reduced the public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges and the deference of the public to the
judgments and rulings of courts and injured the system of government under law.
f. acted based on favor.
g. failed to comply with the law
h. failed to interpret and apply the laws that govern us.
i. failed to respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust.
j. failed to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system.
k. failed to be an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes.
l. failed to meet even minimal standards for ethical conduct of judges.

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

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

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

9
 competence in it.

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

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

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

8. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they and there staff initiated, permitted, and/or considered ex parte
communications, or considered other communications made to the judge outsider the presence of the parties concerning a
pending or impending proceeding on several occasions.
9. 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.

10. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they independently investigated facts in a case outside the courtroom and
considered evidence other than that presented in documents, and with the fact they did not allow my witnesss to take the
stand.

11. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they failed to insure that Section 3B(7) was not violated through law
clerks or other personnel on the judge's staff. [If communication between the trial judge and the appellate court with respect
to a proceeding is permitted, a copy of any written communication or the substance of any oral communication should be
provided to all parties.]

12. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(8) in that they failed to dispose promptly of the business of the court. In a fair and
unbias why following the law and rules of the Court.

13. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section B(9) in that she failed to abstain from public comment about a pending or impending
proceeding in any court, and failed to direct similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to his direction and
control.

14. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(1) in that they failed to diligently discharge the judge's administrative
responsibilities without bias or prejudice and maintain professional competence in judicial administration,

15. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(2) in that they failed to require staff, court officials and others subject to the
judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge and to refrain from
manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties.

16. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(3) in that as a they Judge failed to take reasonable measures to assure the prompt
disposition of matters before the court.in a professional and fair way.

17. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(4) in:

a. that they failed to exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit;
b. that they engaged in Retaliation, Retribution, Bias, and showed favoritism;

18. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3D(1) in that they received reliable information indicating a substantial likelihood
that other Judges, and Lawyers hat acted criminally, had conflicts and had committed violations of these Canons or other
laws and they did not take appropriate action.

19. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3D(1) in that they had knowledge that Judge and lawyers had committed violations of
these Canons that raises a substantial question as to their fitness for office and they did not inform the Judicial Inquiry and
Review Commission or other authorities as they are required to do.

20. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3D(2) in that they received reliable information indicating a substantial likelihood that
the attorneys in this case and others had committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and they did not

10
 take appropriate action.

21. 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.

22. That to date December 2, 2015 Janice has personally provided several statements and Motions to Judge outlining much
of the above and offering to provide additional information.

23. The above Judges have engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice" (Va. Const. art. VI, 10;
Code of Virginia 17.1-906) and there performance as a Judge needs investigating and a Special Grand Jury should be
empowered for a fair and unbias investigation into this court and the actions of the above Judges..

Claims: Claims defined in legally: The definition of a claim is:

1) v. to make a demand for money, for property, or for enforcement of a right provided by law. 2) n. the
making of a demand (asserting a claim) for money due, for property, from damages or for enforcement
of a right. If such a demand is not honored, it may result in a lawsuit. In order to enforce a right against
a government agency (ranging for damages from a negligent bus driver to a shortage in payroll) a claim
must be _led _rst. If rejected or ignored by the government, it is lawsuit time.

n. any time one believes he/she has a right to payment for damages from the government or on an unpaid
contract with a government agency (including city, county, state, school district) the first step is to file a
written
claim according to state laws which vary considerably. Usually the time to file a claim is relatively brief. If
the - claim is rejected or ignored and the claimant wants to try again, the claimant must file a lawsuit
within a time period usually shorter than other types of lawsuits.

1. that a complaint or a claim does not have to be proven in the complaint when filed
2. that is done and Discovery through admissions subpoenas for documents and other means

That in the following Claims all information that is pled in this Complaint is and should be included
in the Claim, all with all information filed in the courts in the above cases or any court that shows
these acts and actions are tolling due to Fraud on the Court where there is no statue of limitations.
All prior paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated as if set forth in full for each Claim.

Claims 1
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
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

11
 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.

Claim 2
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.

Claim 3
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.
Claim 4
Racketeering 18 USC 1961, Extortion 18 USC 1951, 18 USC 1963, Va Code 18.2-470 VA Code 18.2-439
Acceptance of bribe by officer or candidate

12
That the appearance to is that the Judges were and are in the loop of the collusion of having Janice jailed and tortured for being
poor, Catholic and to Cover up the criminal acts. At all times threatening incarceration by other Judges if Janice did not pay.
Collusion with others in the intimidation in hopes of Janice being Murdered or committing suicide the acts and actions show a
pattern and practice / Collusion of Virginia Circuit Court Judges, USDC Federal Court and Appeals Court in Virginia and the
District of Columbia That when DiMuroGinsberg, Grenadier Anderson Starace Duffett & Kieser donated substantially to the
Portrait of Judge Donald Haddock was nothing more than a THANK YOU BRIBARY for always having their back. 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.

Claim 5
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.

Claim 6
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

Claim 7
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,

13
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
Claim 8
Gang Activity - Conspiracy 18 USC 1961 VA code 18.2-22

Collusion with numerous individuals and agencies to obstruct justice. Smearing character and reputation to obtain self-serving
favors with the intention of causing overt denials of due process and blocking receipt of honest services while some judges have
been seeking illegal payments. Deformation of Janice Wolk Grenadier
Claim 9
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.

Claim 10
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.
Claim 11
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 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

Claim 12

14
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.

Claim 13
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

Claim 14
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

Claim 15
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

15
 Claim 16
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,

Claim 17
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 e-mails showing Mark Warners knowledge of the corruption in the Judiciary and the cover up of Lawyer
Ilona Grenadier Heckman, for pure abuse of Janice.
Claim 18
Ex parte Communications Judicial Canon 3(B)7 Virginia code of Professional Conduct

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

Claim 19
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.
Claim 20
Perjury VA Code 18.2-10, 18.2-434, 8.01-4.3

16
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

Claim 21
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

Claim 22
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.

Claim 23
VA Code 18.2-481 Treason - VA Code 18.2-482 Misprision of Treason

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
Claim 24
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

17
 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.

Claim 25
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
Claim 26
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
Claim 27
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.

Claim 28

18
 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

Claim 29
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,
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

19
 (b) A lawyers fee shall be adequately explained to the client

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information

(b)To the extent a lawyer reasonably believes necessary the lawyer may reveal:

(1) Such information to comply with the law or a court order

(3)Such information which clearly establishes that the client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated
upon a third party, a FRAUD related to the subject matter of the representation.

(c) A lawyer shall promptly reveal:

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

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

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

(2) The lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(3) The client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, he
consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.

Rule 1.8 Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions

Rule 1.9 Conflict of Interest : Former Client Janice Wolk Grenadier was a former client of Ben DiMuro

(a)A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent antother person in the same or a
substantially related matter in which that persons interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless both
the present and former client consent after consultation.

(b)A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the
lawyer formerly was associate had previously represented a client.

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
20
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:

(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

21
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 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

22
 (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

(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

23
promises of benefits.
(b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyers services except that a lawyer may:
(1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule and Rule 7.1;
(2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit qualified lawyer referral service;
(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17; and
(4) give nominal gifts of gratitude that are neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for
recommending a lawyers services.
(c) Every written, recorded or electronic communication from a lawyer soliciting professional employment from a
potential client known to be in need of legal services in a particular matter shall conspicuously display the words
ADVERTISING MATERIAL on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and ending of any recorded or
electronic communication, unless the recipient of the communication:
(1) is a lawyer; or
(2) has a familial, personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer; or
(3) is one who has had prior contact with the lawyer.

Rule 7.4 Communication Of Fields Of Practice And Certification

Lawyers may state, announce or hold themselves out as limiting their practice in a particular area or field of law so long as
the communication of such limitation of practice is in accordance with the standards of this Rule, Rule 7.1 and Rule 7.3, as
appropriate. A lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer has been recognized or certified as a specialist in a particular field
of law except as follows:
(a) A lawyer admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the
designation "Patent Attorney" or a substantially similar designation;
(b) A lawyer engaged in Admiralty practice may use as a designation "Admiralty," "Proctor in Admiralty" or a substantially
similar designation;
(c) A lawyer who has been certified by the Supreme Court of Virginia as a specialist in some capacity may use the designation of
being so certified, e.g., "certified mediator" or a substantially similar designation;
(d) A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer has been certified as a specialist in a field of law by a named
organization, provided that the communication clearly states that there is no procedure in the Commonwealth of Virginia for
approving certifying organizations.

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

Rules 8.1 - 8.5 - Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession

Rule 8.1 Bar Admission And Disciplinary Matters

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

24
and practice in the City of Alexandria Court documents, in court and to the Supreme Court of Virginia

Rule 8.3 Reporting Misconduct

(a) A lawyer having reliable information that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law shall
inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) A lawyer having reliable information that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that
raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
(c) If a lawyer serving as a third party neutral receives reliable information during the dispute resolution process that
another lawyer has engaged in misconduct which the lawyer would otherwise be required to report but for its confidential
nature, the lawyer shall attempt to obtain the parties' written agreement to waive confidentiality and permit disclosure of
such information to the appropriate professional authority.

(d) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer
or judge who is a member of an approved lawyer's assistance program, or who is a trained intervenor or volunteer for
such a program or committee, or who is otherwise cooperating in a particular assistance effort, when such information is
obtained for the purposes of fulfilling the recognized objectives of the program.
(e) A lawyer shall inform the Virginia State Bar if:
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.

Conclusion / Relief
WHEREFORE Plaintiff incorporates all of the above. That Plaintiff demands a Trial by Jury and
requests that if found to be true that all Orders by Judge James Clark be VOID then the appropriate
25
actions be taken against Judge James Clark for his criminal acts and actions. That anything else the Jury
would find appropriate to be award Plaintiff for her needless pain and suffering at the hands of one of the
most Corrupt Judges in the State of Virginia.

That no American should have to be discriminated against by Judges as Justice is suppose to be Blind.

Date: March 9, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

/S/_____________________________
Janice Wolk Grenadier
15 West Spring Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22301
Telephone (202) 368-7178
Email jwgrenadier@gmail.com
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:

1. IFP denial from the City of Alexandria Circuit Court appointed by

Supreme Court Justice Lemons - Judge Poston
2. IFP denial from the City of Alexandria by Judge James Clark
3. Statement of Facts from hearing on June 8, 2016
4. Statement of Facts from hearing on June 22, 2016
5. Article Lawyers fee for Injunctive Relief That it is legal to
6. Judge Kloch Orders & Letters where it states in his recuse and
apology The appearance of Justice is just as important as Justice
itself

CERTIFICATION: I declare under penalty and perjury: That (1) No attorney has prepared or assisted in the
preparation of this document. Janice Wolk Grenadier Name of Pro Se Party.
_______________________________
March 9, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Where is Janice on March 7, 2017 Will be served by the United States Marshalls of the USDC of Virginia
(Alexandria)

Judge James C. Clark

520 King Street 4th Floor
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

March 9, 2017

26