Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Notice of Suit to be Filed

Janice Wolk Grenadier                                                                                                          
15 West Spring Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22301
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

Corporate Headquarters
Florence Building
111 North Higgins Ave,  Suite 200
Missoula, Mt  59802

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.

Janice Wolk Grenadier

“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

Rules governing proceedings before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission

§ 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