Janice Wolk Grenadier
15 West Spring Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22301
jwgrenadier@gmail.com
202-368-7178
August 20, 2014
Ms Katherine B. Burnett
Judicial Inquiry and review
Commission
100 North Ninth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Judge
James Clark
520
King Street
Alexandria,
Virginia 22314
Alps
Corporate
Headquarters
Florence
Building
111
North Higgins Ave, Suite 200
Missoula,
Mt 59802
406-728-3113
Re: Janice Wolk Grenadier Pro Se, Plaintiff – Notice of Suit to be filed in the United
States Federal Court – Suit
will be filed for the collusion to deny Honest Services 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Justice,
Tampering with Evidence, Theft of Evidence, Mail Fraud, Fraud on the Court,
Treason, Ex-Parte Communications, Discrimination – Social, Economic, Religious,
Hierarchy , Violating the Laws and the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia,
the United States Supreme Court, the Virginia Constitution and the United
States Constitution, Judicial Cannons, The Code of Professional Ethics and
other charges described below and in a Verified Complaint to be filed. That
on July 23, 2014 Judge James Clark with the collusion of lawyers who in the
past have been paid by Alps Insurance and with the JIRC leading council since
on or around June of 2013 KATHERINE B. BURNETT denied Plaintiff
under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 Honest Services the scheme was in Bias, Retribution and Retaliation
ignoring all evidence of Defendant showing Favoritism and Cronyism towards one
of his own Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman who without her, Michael
Weiser, and her attorney’s he would not have been chosen to replace Judge
Haddock who “LOVED ILONA” . Ignoring the
law of Honest Services in the closed Judicial society, you
scratch my back, with the believe “there’s nothing you can do?” you aren’t one of us.
The Scheme to intimidate, Bully Plaintiff with jail time and
approx. $33,000 in legal fees sanctioned for lawyers who have lied in
court, ex-parte communication, lied in court documents, lied in court documents
to Bankruptcy Court, lied in court documents to the Supreme Court of Virginia,
Prince William Court shows with the collusion of the JIRC and Judge Clark have Behaved very Badly in a
grotesque and reprehensible criminal enterprise conducted with full knowledge,
consent, and contribution from public and private servants alike. The Truth the best defense is what Janice
Wolk Grenadier has.
On
September 12, 2007 Ilona Grenadier Heckman a lawyer lied in court. That evening a Federal Judge informed me (JW Grenadier)
that I had just won my case no Judge like’s a lawyer lying to him in court. The Slippery Slope of the Truth and of the collision
of Equal Justice, Due Process, Blind Justice, Honest Services and the desperate
need of the Old Boy’s Network of Virginia / Judicial System of Virginia to protect one of their own - hiding
the criminal actions of Ilona Grenadier Heckman.
The collusion / scheme of Ms. Burnett, Judge Clark
& ALPs to deny Honest Services to JW
Grenadier was decided on the morning of July 23, 2014 with the knowledge that
JW Grenadier had filed suit against Judge Clark in the DC Federal Court. That this suit is about the collusion of
these parties to prevent Honest Serves on July 23, 2014.
The suit will be filed in
Federal Court under Title 18 U.S. Code
241 & 242; Title 42 U.S. Code
1981 & 1983, 18
U.S.C. § 1346 and et al This suit asks for Relief of all orders made
in violation of the Law that Due Process of Law is allowed and further issue declaratory
and injunctive relief as the court deems appropriate. That a Special Grand Jury
be appointed to look into the Criminal Misconduct of Defendants.
It was and is your job to assure a Judge
performing Judicial functions are done in an Honest way, though Judges may enjoy Immunity, denial of constitutional
and civil rights, tampering with evidence, mail fraud, deny of Honest Services,
ex-parte communications, harassment, are absolutely not a judicial function and
conflicts with any definition of a Judicial function. According to Judge Clark the JIRC assured him
he was within his rights to intimidate and sentence Janice Wolk Grenadier to 30
days in jail and close to $33,000 in outrages, frivolous legal fees by his personal friends, allowing
them to lie in court, lie in court documents.
The attorneys have been paid in the past by Alps.
In several cases and courts and the Supreme
Courts when not influenced by Favoritism and Cronyism did hold Judges
accountable when their knowing and willing actions fell outside the boundaries’
of their job description. That failure to follow simple guidelines of
their post makes a Judge’s action no
longer a judicial act but an individual act as the act represents their own
prejudices and goals. Case Law also
states that when a Judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a Judge does not
follow the law, he then loses subject matter Jurisdiction and the Judges orders are VOID, of no legal force
or affect.
There is documented, an overwhelming amount
of evidence of Judicial Misconduct; Criminal
Misconduct, deny of Honest Services not limited to Conspiracy; Collusion;
Obstruction of Justice; Tampering with Evidence; Mail Fraud; Honest Serves Fraud;
Extortion; Harassment; Gang activity; Racketeering; Retaliation;
Discrimination; et al. Misconduct
while in Office: not limited to: decisions made in bad faith for a corrupt
purpose, deliberately and intentionally failing to follow the law; Extrinsic
fraud; Egregious legal errors; Violation of Procedural Rules; Violation of Due Process; Violation of Constitutional rights per Title 42
U.S.C. 1981, 1983. Title 18 U.S. C. 241
& 242 ; Virginia Code 17 .1-105(b); The Cannons of Judicial Conduct and Rules of
Professional Conduct have been ignored by all.
This notice is given with the right to add others at a later date.
Your actions have lost you immunity and the
protection of your job, as my complaint was not investigated, and according to
Judge Clark he was given the go ahead by you to sentence me to Jail and
Frivolous legal fees with the gang like intent to Intimidate and Bully. That Judge Clark Questioning the honesty or
Plaintiff in Court shows he had not read any of Plaintiff’s/ Defendants Documents and
evidence which shows Plaintiff has the “TRUTH” on her side the best defense one
can have.
Warmly,
Janice Wolk Grenadier
202-368-7178
“The appearance of
Justice is just as important as Justice itself “
Judge
Kloch in his letter of apology and to recuse himself.
Judicial
Inquiry and Review Commission
Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia
These Canons, which govern the conduct and actions of all justices and judges of the Commonwealth, retired judges and members eligible for recall to judicial service, substitute judges and special justices, judges pro tempore while acting as a judge pro tempore, and all members of the State Corporation Commission and Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission, can be found in Part 6, Section III of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia
These Canons, which govern the conduct and actions of all justices and judges of the Commonwealth, retired judges and members eligible for recall to judicial service, substitute judges and special justices, judges pro tempore while acting as a judge pro tempore, and all members of the State Corporation Commission and Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission, can be found in Part 6, Section III of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia
§
17.1-902. Powers and duties of Commission generally. The Commission is vested with the power,
and it shall be its duty, to investigate charges arising out of the present or
any prior term of office which would be the basis for retirement, censure, or
removal of a judge under Article VI, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia
and the provisions of this chapter even though the subject judge may have been
reelected to a new term of office. The
Commission, after such investigation as it deems necessary, may order and
conduct hearings at such times and places in the Commonwealth as it shall
determine. If the Commission finds the charges to be well-founded, and sufficient
to constitute the basis for retirement, censure, or removal of a judge, it may
file a formal complaint before the Supreme Court. The Commission shall have the authority to
make rules, not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter or of general
law, to govern investigations and hearings conducted by it. No act of the Commission shall be valid
unless concurred with by a majority of its members. (1971, Ex. Sess., c. 154, §§ 2.1-37.4,
2.1-37.5, 2.1-37.6; 2001, c. 844.)
No comments:
Post a Comment