UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JANICE WOLK GRENADIER,
Plaintiff, Civil
Action No 14 - 0162
v. No.
14-7020 September Term 2013
Motion for investigation into Judge Beryl A. Howell
ILONA GRENADIER HECKMAN et al
·
Motion
for immediate Investigation into Judge A. Howell stealing Documents out of Case File No.14-0162
with the assistance of the Clerks Angela D. Caesar & Deputy clerk Michael
Darby – Obstructing Justice & Tampering with evidence recorded into the
record
·
Motion
for immediate Investigation into Judge Beryl A. Howell and her relationship with Keller Heckman Law firm – Jerome
(Jerry) Heckman - Ilona Grenadier Heckman – Loretta Lax Miller et al
·
Motion
for immediate Investigation into Judge Beryl A. Howell and Her husband
(Michael Rosenfeld) religious beliefs
·
Motion
for immediate Investigation into Judge Beryl A. Howell’s relationship with the
Center for Democracy and Technology that lists Howell as a
“board alum”(per Wikipedia – a Technology group Keller Heckman is very involved
in)
·
Motion
for description as to what is confusing to the Judges on
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint written with the help of an attorney
·
Motion
for Law used in Order dated on May 19, 2014 & May 30, 2014
‘That the appearance of Justice is as important as
Justice itself” That the appearance of
the Memorandum of Law and the Orders is Judges ruling in Favoritism and
Cronyism for the Virginia Judicial System and the United States District
Court Eastern District of Virginia to protect their colleges/friends, lawyers,
government employees, Judges, - To keep the Judicial System Corruption from being
exposed – To discredit and slander Plaintiff as the United States District
Court Eastern District of Virginia has done as well as other Judges and the
documents allowed to be filed by Loretta Miller et al.
·
Motion to have all Orders by Judge Beryl A. Howell
stricken from the record due to the appearance of conflict and criminal actions of tampering/stealing Documents stamped and filed into
the Record on Case Civil Action No 14 –
0162 in this Court
Table of Contents
(so as not to confuse the Judges – so they cannot say
Plaintiff is rambling on)
The Law
Statement
to include all Documents filed in case to Date
Statement
For Each Motion
Statement
of the Facts
Parties
Conclusion
Attachments
Copy of Document Filed by Plaintiff on May 6, 2014 and
Mailed back to on or around May 19, 2014
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO HOME GROWN TERRIOST: LORETTA LAX MILLER –aka – LEA LAX –aka –
MUGGY CAT –aka – BILLY SULLIVAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR 2016 ANSWERS TO THE
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER
The Law
1.
Code of Conduct for United States Judges:
Federal judges abide by the Code of
Conduct for United States Judges, a set of ethical principles and guidelines
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Code of Conduct
provides guidance for judges on issues of judicial integrity and independence,
judicial diligence and impartiality, permissible extra-judicial activities, and
the avoidance of impropriety or even its appearance.
Judges may not hear cases in which
they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias
concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer, or
a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.
Many federal judges devote time to
public service and educational activities. They have a distinguished history of
service to the legal profession through their writing, speaking, and teaching.
This important role is recognized in the Code of Conduct, which encourages
judges to engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice.
Canon 1: A Judge should uphold the
Integrity and the Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: A Judge should avoid
Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all activities
Canon 3: A Judge should perform the duties of the
office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4: A Judge may engage in extra
Judicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of judicial office
Canon 5: A Judge should refrain from
Political Activity
2. "Pro se plaintiffs are often unfamiliar with the
formalities of pleading requirements. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court has
instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to
apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se
complaint than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel. See
e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per
curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21, 92 S.Ct.
594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); see also Elliott v. Bronson, 872
F.2d 20, 21 (2d
Cir.1989) (per curiam). In order to
justify the dismissal of a pro se complaint, it must be " 'beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.' " Haines
v. Kerner, 404
U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at
594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355
U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct.
99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).
3. American
citizens are guaranteed “equal protection of the laws” by the Fourteenth
Amendment and an “impartial jury” by the Sixth Amendment. Justice is blind means
that justice is impartial and objective.
4. “Fairness of course requires an absence of
actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored
to prevent even the probability of unfairness. “In re Murchinson, 349
U.S. 133, 136 (1955)” When reviewing a pro-se pleading, it is prudent to follow
the federal practice of liberally construing the allegations set out in the
pleading to determine whether the pleading asserts any valid causes of
action. See, e.g. Harrison v. U.S. Postal
Services 840 F. 2d 1149, 1152 (4th Cir. 1988). The factual allegations should be viewed in
the light most favorable to the pleading party.
Davis v. City of Portsmouth, 579 F. Supp. 1205, 1209-10 (E.D. Va. 1983), aff’d, 742 F
.2d 1448 (4th Cir. 1984)
5.
Failing to protect the Civil Rights of
Plaintiff by ignoring Due Process, showing favoritism to the Defendants and
Defendants attorneys because of who they are part of the Old Boy’s Network of
Virginia or other. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a landmark civil rights decision of the United
States Supreme Court against discrimination.
Which includes being discriminated because the Judge’s, lawyers, elected
officials and government employees have decided you are not a part of their
race.
6. “No man in this country is so high that he is
above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with
impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest,
are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” Butz v. Economou,
98 S.Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S.Ct. at 261
(1882)”
7.
“Further it is the obligation of every Judge to honor, abide by, and uphold
not only the Constitution and laws of the State, but they are bound by the laws
and Constitution of the United States as well.”
8. “State courts, like federal courts, have a
constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal
law.” Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n 35, 96 S. Ct 3037, 49
L Ed. 2d 1067 (1976)”
9. “Any judge who does not comply with his oath
to the Constitution of the United States, wars against that Constitution and
engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not fully
comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124
U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act
or acts of treason.”
10. You can’t change the Truth - The Truth is the actions of the Judges, Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed
“fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of
no legal force or effect.” “Citation: 93F. 2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937) Any judgment procured by fraud is null and
void. An erroneous judgment may be attacked collaterally. Affirmed”
11. The Constitution of the United States A fundamental, guarantee that all legal
proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings
and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's
life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall
not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious. The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels
of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic
constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment
restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by
it. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868,
declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the powers
of the states, rather than those of the federal government.
28 U.S. Code § 455 -
Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)
Any justice, judge, or magistrate
judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)
He shall also disqualify himself
in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has
a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where
in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a
lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as
a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material
witness concerning it; (3) Where he has served in
governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser
or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion
concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; (4) He
knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child
residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in
controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could
be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (5) He or his spouse, or a person
within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of
such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or
trustee of a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer
in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge
to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge
likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial
interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal
financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the
following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated: (1) “proceeding”
includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation; (2) the degree of relationship is calculated
according to the civil law system; (3) “fiduciary”
includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian; (4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal
or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser,
or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds
securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge
participates in the management of the fund; (ii) An
office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic
organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the
organization; (iii) The proprietary interest
of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual
savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial
interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could
substantially affect the value of the interest; (iv) Ownership
of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the
outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the
proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection
(b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a),
waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the
record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding
the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate
judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be
disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter,
because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or
her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or
minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a
party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate
judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests
himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the
disqualification.
13.
Other law is included in this document where
applicable.
Statement to include all Documents filed in
case to Date
That
Plaintiff includes in this all documents filed from on or around January 22,
2014 in this Case and the Appeal Brief with Appendix filed on June 6, 2014. That Judges ruled without Defendants filing any
documents until on or around April 17, 2014 when Loretta Lax Miller filed
documents that are and were riddled with lies and slanderous to Plaintiff. These documents have been allowed into the
record. Plaintiffs documents in response
filed on May 6, 2014 stamped into the record were mailed back to
Plaintiff. Federal Law prohibits
Obstruction of Justice, Tampering with evidence, Harassment, Intimidation of a
witness or Pro Se litigant. That by all appearance Judges in the United States
District Court of the District of Columbia ruled on ex parte communications
with Defendants or Defendants agents.
Statement for Each Motion
1.
Motion
for immediate Investigation into Judge A. Howell stealing Documents out of Case
File No. 14 -0162 , Tampering with evidence recorded/stamped into the record.
By appearance with the assistance of the Clerks Angela D. Caesar and Michael
Darby, Deputy Clerk
A. Obstruction
of Justice US Code 18 U.S. Code
Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE – That when Judge A. Howell stole the
documents she Obstructed the Truth and evidence to prove that Loretta Lax
Miller had lied in documents submitted to this court.
B.
18 U.S. Code §
1506 - Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
Whoever feloniously
steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record, writ,
process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby any
judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; or
Whoever acknowledges, or
procures to be acknowledged in any such court, any recognizance, bail, or
judgment, in the name of any other person not privy or consenting to the same—
Shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both
18 .S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a
witness, victim, or an informant
(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force
against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
(A) influence, delay,
or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) cause or induce
any person to—(i) withhold testimony, or
withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to
impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official
proceeding; (iii) evade
legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a
record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (iv) be
absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by
legal process; or
(C) hinder, delay, or
prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United
States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a
Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release,
parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be punished as provided in paragraph
(3). (3) The
punishment for an offense under this subsection is—
18 U.S. Code § 1513 - Retaliating
against a witness, victim, or an informant - That Judge Beryl A. Howell retaliated by her
Order of May 30, 2014 denying Amended Complaint
18
U.S. Code § 1514 - Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness - That Judge Beryl A. Howell has empowered Defendant to further
harass and Slander Plaintiff as is being done in the new Blog by Loretta Miller
– as seen further down under Parties by
Loretta Miller’s Blog LorettaMiller
18
U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a
witness, victim, or an informant
(a)
(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with
intent to—
(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an
official proceeding;
(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other
object, in an official proceeding; or
(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement
officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission
or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of
probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as
provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force
against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
(A) influence, delay,
or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) cause or induce
any person to—
(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record,
document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with
intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an
official proceeding; (iii) evade legal process summoning
that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other
object, in an official proceeding; or (iv) be absent from an
official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
(C) hinder, delay, or
prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United
States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a
Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release,
parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as
provided in paragraph (3).
(3) The punishment for
an offense under this subsection is—
(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in
sections 1111 and 1112;
(i) an attempt to
murder; or (ii) the
use or attempted use of physical force against any person;
imprisonment for not
more than 30 years; and
(C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against
any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
(b) Whoever knowingly
uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts
to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent
to—
(1) influence, delay,
or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce
any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other
object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent
to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official
proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a
witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official
proceeding; or ET AL -
2.
Motion
for immediate Investigation into Judge Beryl A. Howell and her relationship with Keller
Heckman Law firm – Jerome (Jerry) Heckman - Ilona Grenadier Heckman – Loretta
Lax Miller et al
A.
The orders on or around May 19, &
May 30, 2014 are not rational nor would such an Order be allowed if Plaintiff
was an attorney or had an attorney.
Further, this policy puts Plaintiff before the court on an unequal
footing with Plaintiff’s opponent, a due process violation. ,Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193 ;Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake,
10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956);Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros.,
363 Ill 25 (1936), the court exceeded
it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278
F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) Plaintiff’s opponent Ilona Ely Grenadier Heckman has the
benefits of being an attorney, the widow
of a past Judge, the widow of Jerome (Jerry) Heckman founding partner of Keller
Heckman an international law firm whose main office is in DC that specializes
in many fields that Judge Beryl A. Howell has worked in. That Loretta Lax Miller et al claims to be
running for President of the United States of America and has donations coming
in from the likes of Larry Page of Google, Microsoft, several different
performers, Radio stations, Facebook etc etc and very close ties to Israel and
its leaders. With Israel paying for monthly flights back and forth for her and
her son due to an illness he has.
3.
Motion
for immediate Investigation into Judge Beryl A. Howell and Her husband
(Michael Rosenfeld) religious beliefs
A.
That this case is about
Religious and Judicial discrimination with the attend to harm Plaintiff
emotionally, financially and by all appearance with the threats to come to her
home with many others physically, that with Judge Beryl A. Howell’s rulings
being so outrages, discriminating and criminal taking files stamped into the
record and Denying them to be filed and mailing them back to Plaintiff that by
the appearance of the last name of her husband she could be or her husband
could be Jewish in collusion with Defendants
That 28 U.S. Code § 455 – 9 (a) (b) can be found above in
The Law.
B.
Defendants and Judges have used
unfair/unconscionable means to try and intimate and scare Plaintiff – They have
acted as the Klue Klux Klan would have in the past. Plaintiff is aware
that Plaintiff must show that Plaintiff can prove each element of alleged facts
in her claims. That to seek relief for the violation of a person’s Federal and
Constitution rights under Title 42 § 1983 it allows Plaintiff to her rights
contained in the United States Constitution as defined by Federal Law.
Plaintiff has
been discriminated against for being Catholic That Civil Rights Act of 1968
enacted 18 USC 245 prevents discrimination due to Religion that this is a Hate Crime and “Hate crime
laws are colorblind” Fact the case which
the Supreme Court upheld hate crimes of the First amendment attach, Wisconsin
v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476(1993) involved a white victim.
Plaintiff has been discriminated against for being
black balled by the Old Boy’s Network / Judicial Community due to her x-husband
being the son of the late Judge Albert
Grenadier whom was the Husband to Defendant Ilona a lawyer who has also
intervened into Defendants Divorce. That
the discrimination and segregation among white exist the power Hierarchy by a
member of one that is considered by others
inferior to the other.
C.
That this e-mail is only one of many
that shows the Religious Discrimination, Harassment and Hate that this court
has supported:
|
|
Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:05 PM
|
|
|
want to hear something more
scarier I contacted Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman
your witch hunt is over
|
|
From:LeahLax1234@aol.com <LeahLax1234@aol.com>
|
Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM
|
To: jwgrendier@gmail.com
|
you know what YOU DIDN"T
HELP JEWS YOU ARE THE KIND THAT
WOULD TURN THEM IN BECAUSE
ONE PERSON DID SOMETHING TO YOU THAT WAS JEWISH. YOU MADE YOUR BED AND YOU
LIED IN IT ! THIS FAMILY REJECTED YOU FOR NOT BEING JEWISH. YOU STUPID
GOY. YOU WERE REJECTED .. GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK SKULL. NOW YOU ARE
MAKING UP STORIES AND SPREADING LIES! BLAMING ALL JEWS LIKE HITLER FOR NOT LIVING ON EASY
STREET. WELL GET OFF YOUR ASS. GOOD
YOU LOST ALL YOUR MONEY MAKES YOU HUMBLE. AND GOOD YOU GOT A WHIPPING FROM
A JEWISH LAWYER WHO WAS SMARTER THEN YOURS. GOOD FOR HER. I WOULD HIRE HER
IN A HEART BEAT. SHE WENT AFTER A JEW HATING NAZI AND SHE WON. AND I
HOPE SHE GAVE HER GRANDSON A GOOD TALKING TO FOR MARRYING A GOY IN
THE FIRST PLACE AND HE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS ZIPPER UP AND NOT HAVE HAD SEX
WITH A MENTALLY SICK PIECE OF CRAP LIKE YOU.
YOU ARE THE NAZI WORSE A
MUSLIN LOVING NAZI!
YOU HATE YOURSELF THAT IS WHY YOU HATE JEWS YOU ARE BLOCKED! -
The Words of
Presidential candidate Leah Lax et al –
That this is only one of several
e-mails sent to Janice Wolk Grenadier since May of 2008 from when Defendant Ilona Grenadier
turned in court to Janice Wolk Grenadier and said “Me and my family had nothing to do with your girls because you
raised them Catholic” These
girls by blood were the Grandchildren of Judge Albert Grenadier and the cousins
of her 3rd Husband Jerome Heckman (Jerome may have seen the
girls once or twice with Ilona only seeing them a few times more in 23
years) the emails were in collusion of Ilona, her lawyers and others
under the direction of Ilona by all appearance. More e-mails can be seen in found in the
Appendix with the appeals court and other filings in this court. That
the unequal treatment by this court by appearance is because of the
Plaintiff’s Christian / Catholic beliefs.
That Christian / Catholics to hate or to torture Jews would be in
direct conflict of their basic beliefs as Jesus is Jewish. It is the Jews that have chosen not to
accept him. It is the Jewish
Defendants and Judges that have persecuted Plaintiff for her religious
believes – to take the eyes off the real criminal and criminal actions of
wealthy, powerful Old Boy Network attorney Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier
Heckman.
D.
Prejudice has been shown by all Judges and there is prejudgment, or the forming of an opinion before becoming aware of
the relevant facts of a case. By slandering Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s filings without
giving Plaintiff her day in Court.
|
|
4.
Motion
for immediate Investigation into Judge Beryl A. Howell’s relationship with the
Center for Democracy and Technology that lists Howell as a
“board alum”(per Wikipedia – a Technology group Keller Heckman is very involved
in)
A.
Plaintiff
googled
searched “Center for Democracy and
Technology Keller Heckman” results
were 3,740
results (0.43 seconds)
Feb 3, 2011 - ... President and
Chief Executive Officer, Center for Democracy and Technology, ...
Richard Leighton, Keller & Heckman,
Washington, DC.
Keller Heckman a firm used by the
government in several areas by all appearance from information found on line
shows a collusion with Judge Beryl A. Howell which would link her to Jerome
Heckman founding partner and late husband of Defendant Ilona Ely Freedman
Grenadier Heckman a lawyer.
5.
Motion
for description as to what is confusing to the Judges on
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint reviewed by an attorney.
A.
That by all appearance the
Judge’s are ruling to protect the corruption in the Judicial System being
reviled. To protect very powerful Ilona
Grenadier Heckman a lawyer who if held accountable should and will lose her Law
License and possible go to jail as Jim Arthur did for 5 years for his stealing
from the Sonia Grenadier trust and others.
6.
Motion
for Law used in Order dated on May 19, 2014 & May 30, 2014 ‘That the appearance of
Justice is as important as Justice itself”
That the appearance of the Memorandum of
Law and the Orders is Judges ruling in Favoritism and Cronyism for
the Virginia Judicial System and the United States District Court Eastern
District of Virginia to protect their colleges/friends, lawyers, government
employees, Judges,
To
keep the Judicial System Corruption from being exposed –
To
discredit and slander Plaintiff as the United States District Court Eastern
District of Virginia has done as well as other Judges and the documents allowed
to be filed by Loretta Miller et al.
A. That
the Memorandum of Law and Orders show the Corruption, the Collusion, the
Criminal actions of the Judges to try
and silence the “TRUTH”. That
discrimination of Religion, Class, Social Status, Financial is clear. That to
use damaging words that have no
substance to the case – to take the eyes off the facts. That the Judge’s slandering Plaintiff is
criminal.
7. Motion to have all Orders by Judge Beryl A. Howell
stricken from the record and her removed due to the appearance of conflict and
criminal actions of
tampering with Documents stamped and filed into the Record on Case14-0162 in this Court
A. That a Special Grand
Jury should be put into place to investigate the Criminal Actions of the Courts,
Judges and Clerks.
Statement
of Facts
1.
That
on or around April 17, 2014 Loretta Lax Miller et al filed in this court
“Answers to the Amended Verified Complaint and New Matter” This document was the first
and to date the only document filed with this court. No other document has been filed denying any
allegations by the Plaintiff.
2.
That
the document filed on or around April 17, 2014 was and is riddled with
slanderous lies.
3.
That
this document was allowed to be filed into the Record and the slanderous lies
to remain in the record to protect the Judge’s rulings.
4.
That on May
6, 2014 Plaintiff filed: PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO HOME GROWN TERRIOST:
LORETTA LAX MILLER –aka – LEA LAX –aka – MUGGY CAT –aka – BILLY SULLIVAN
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR 2016 ANSWERS TO THE AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND
NEW MATTER It was stamped into the record with no questions
of it being inappropriate.
5.
That
on or around May 19, 2014 Judge Beryl A. Howell personally 2 weeks after the
filing decides she doesn’t want to allow the “TRUTH” into the record. Judge Beryl A. Howell without cause which
shows personal conflict mailed back Plaintiffs documents on or around May 25th
per postage stamped.
6.
That
on or around May 30, 2014 to further assist her friends the Defendants Loretta
Lax Miller, Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman and others Judge Beryl A.
Howell does an Empowering Order for
Defendants – further disclosing the appearance of Obstruction of Justice,
Tampering with evidence to cover up the criminal actions of the Defendants.
7.
That
by all appearance ex parte communications Loretta Miller was informed of this prior
to the Order even being mailed out to Plaintiff Janice Wolk Grenadier on June
11, 2014 as Loretta Miller was able to go on Line start a new Blog:
“LorettaMillerSuesJaniceWolkGrenadier.blogspot.com” Under Parties you will see
her blog entries and her twitter entries of such new blog.
8.
That
in May of 2014 in Camp Hill, PA a new police report is filed against Loretta
Miller for a Hate Crime against a young girl. That may have been prevented if
the Judges in this court had acted with integrity and using the Laws and Rules
of the Supreme Court, the United States Constitution of America and the Bill of
Rights been prevented.
Parties
1.
Judge Beryl A. Howell by all appearance guilty
of: Obstruction of Justice, Tampering with
evidence, theft of evidence stamped in
documents for CASE NO. 14-0162,
Religious, Social, Economic Discrimination and other things. Included all information in the Motions
Statements.
2.
Ilona Grenadier Heckman a lawyer is guilty of the following criminal actions: of being
involved in , Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Aiding and abetting
obstruction of Justice, Fraud on the Court, Involvement of Forgery, Theft of
money from the Sonia Grenadier Trust account through her law office for great
personal gain over $10 Million in Real Estate, Theft of Herman
Grenadier, malpractice, Bribery, Abuse of her Oath of Office, Conspiracy,
Collusion, Miscarriage of Justice, preventing Due Process, conflict of interest
– related to the practice of law, violating code of ethics, has liability to
her victims, has violated Plaintiffs Religious, Political, United
state Constitutional, Virginia Constitutional and Civil Rights, Breach of
Fiduciary Duties, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Title 18 US code
241 Conspiracy against rights, and 242 Deprivation of rights under color of
law, Retaliatory & Retribution actions, Treason, Title VI Civil
Rights Act of 1964 Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., was
enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, 18 USC§
912. With her Intention to 18 USC § 1341 -Frauds and swindles,
Defraud, Breach of Contract, Arbitrary and Capricious behavior,
Committed Fraud on the Court, § 18.2-498.3. Misrepresentations prohibited, §
18.2-172 - Forging, uttering, etc., other writings et al. All
of above charges will be proven with letters, documents, witnesses who have
also been harmed by the actions of Plaintiff.
That Defendant Ilona’s attorneys, have lied in court, lied in court
documents in Circuit Court and to the Supreme Court of Virginia, used bribery, Obstruction
of Justice, ex-parte communications with Judges and other criminal activities.
That under the
Preamble, A Lawyer’s Responsibilities reads in part:
“A lawyer’s conduct
should conform to the requirements or the law, both in professional service to
clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer
should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass
or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the
legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and
public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal
process.”
“In the mature of law
practice, however, conflicting responsibilities are
encountered. Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from conflict
between a lawyer’s responsibilities to clients, to the legal system and to the
lawyer’s own interest in remaining an upright person while earning a
satisfactory living.”
“the legal
profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of
self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that
its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of
parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance of
the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in
securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these
responsibilities compromises the Independence of the profession and the public
interest which it serves,”
Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession Rule 8.3 Reporting
Misconduct
Is very clear if a
lawyer knows of another lawyers illegal actions they are required to report
such actions to the appropriate authorities.
Rule 8.4 Misconduct:
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 lawyer’s 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.
3. Loretta
Lax Miller et al:
1. That on or around May 2013 Loretta Miller et
al requested a connection on Linkedin of Plaintiff.
2. That on or around Dec 2013 she e-mailed Plaintiff as Billy Sullivan
– Looking to harm herself.
3. On Sunday December 29th concerned
for the safety of Loretta Lax Miller Plaintiff reached out to the FBI to
protect Loretta Lax Miller.
4. Loretta Lax Miller also started at this point
using the name Muggy Cat which she used to start a blog
jwgrenadierisalair.blogspot.com which is riddled with lies and slanderous
statements. This blog was in collusion
with Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman as well as all e-mails and threats.
5. E-mails and all can be read in documents filed
in this Court the Verified Complaints etc.
6. On or around April 17, 2014 Loretta Miller
responds to court filings.
7. By all appearance of timing she is involved
with x-parte communications with the Judges or through Ilona Ely Freedman
Grenadier Heckman a very wealthy powerful Jewish attorney.
8. The Twitter and new Blog that Loretta Miller
has been so empowered to do thanks to the Obstruction of Justice and Tampering
of Evidence by Judge Beryl A. Howell.
JWG <valaw2010@gmail.com>
|
|
12/20/13
|
|
-
- "Me and My family had nothing to do with your girls
because you raised them Catholic" by - Jewish attorney Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier
Heckman - of Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffet & Kiesler
Israel wants the United States of America
to defend them - yet some of the most
powerful Jews in the Washington
DC area - are discriminating against Catholics, Corrupting the Judicial
System, and Cheating the IRS. -
My personal opinion is we need to be friends with Israel - But, they have
to have the same respect for other religions - and for the Laws and the Rules of the Supreme Courts and
the United States of America's Constitution - Very powerful Jews in the DC area Ilona Ely Freedman Heckman
and Yoav Katz are using their money and power to buy their war around the
Judicial System and cheat the IRS! you can read more at www.valaw2010.blogspot.com
My
Pillow Pack <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
|
|
12/20/13
|
|
|
|
|
- "Me and My family had nothing to do with your girls
because you raised them Catholic" by - Jewish attorney Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman -
of Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffet & Kiesler
- Israel wants the United States of America to defend them
- yet some of the most
powerful Jews in the
Washington DC area - are discriminating against Catholics, Corrupting the
Judicial System, and Cheating the IRS. -My personal opinion is we need to be friends with
Israel - But, they have to have the same respect for other religions - and for the Laws and the Rules of
the Supreme Courts and the United States of America's Constitution - Very powerful Jews in the DC area Ilona Ely
Freedman Heckman and Yoav Katz are using their money and power to buy
their war around the Judicial System and cheat the IRS! you can read more
at www.valaw2010.blogspot.com
Posted by My Pillow Pack
to 2016 AMERICA FIRST LORETTA MILLER CAMPAIGN at December 20, 2013 at 3:57 PM
- What would you think? Exactly what
I thought, a nut job contacting me. So I deleted it. But Notice she
mentions Jewish in each of her letters. This women is obsessed with hate
for Jews.
The combination of Jewish Attorney, most powerful Jews, very powerful Jews
came right out of the Nazi and Islamic training books. This was what
I received in December 20, 2013 and I block this person's email on my blog
email.
Janice these
magic mushrooms do not belong in your salad............
- Psilocybin
mushrooms, also known as psychedelic
mushrooms, are mushrooms that contain the psychedelic drugs psilocybin and psilocin. Common colloquial terms
include magic mushrooms and 'shrooms.[1] Biological genera containing psilocybin
mushrooms include Copelandia, Galerina, Gymnopilus, Inocybe, Mycena, Panaeolus,Pholiotina, Pluteus,
and Psilocybe.
About 40 species are found in the genus Psilocybe. Psilocybe
cubensis is the most common psilocybin mushroom in subtropical
areas and the black market.
- Psilocybin
mushrooms have likely been used since prehistoric times
and may have been depicted in rock art. Many cultures have used these
mushrooms in religious rites. In modern Western society, they are
used recreationally for their psychedelic effects.
- Posted by Leah
Lax at 9:38 PM No comments:
- Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
- Labels: janice wolk Grenadier, LeahLax2016, VALaw2010
- Reason
for the Blog
- The reason for the blog is that
Janice Wolk Grenadier has been spreading lies and hate against Loretta
Miller.
She has posted filing that were thrown out of court as facts.
Even the courts realize Janice is not telling the truth.
Loretta Miller does not know Janice never met her but Janice
thinks she knows Loretta from all hearsay.
So we shall post all of Janice's dirty little secrets that will be exposed
in court documents.
Folks I am exercising my freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Since
Janice has a blog she is considered a public figure and is now open to all
attacks.
Next few days I'll
be writing a Federal not a local or state charges in a law suit in US
Federal court on hate crime. As soon as I get it filed and numbered it
will be placed right here on the net for all to see AND I will post it as
a PDF on other web sites. So hold onto your seats as I undress and expose
this Janice in court filings.
- Posted by Leah Lax at 9:15 PM No comments:
- Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
- Labels: janice wolk Grenadier, LeahLax2016, VALaw2010
- Newer PostsHome
- Subscribe to: Posts (Atom
- Leah Lax aka Loretta Lax Miller -Loretta Miller for
President2016 Sues Janice Wolk Grenadier
- Tuesday, June 10, 2014 Reason for the Blog
- The
reason for the blog is that Janice Wolk Grenadier has been spreading lies
and hate against Loretta Miller. She has posted filing that
were thrown out of court as facts. Even the courts realize
Janice is not telling the truth.
Loretta Miller does not know Janice never met her but Janice
thinks she knows Loretta from all hearsay.
So we shall post all of Janice's dirty little secrets that will be exposed
in court documents.
Folks I am exercising my freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Since
Janice has a blog she is considered a public figure and is now open to all
attacks.
Next few days I'll be writing a Federal not a local or state charges in a
law suit in US Federal court on hate crime. As soon as I get it filed and
numbered it will be placed right here on the net for all to see AND I will
post it as a PDF on other web sites. So hold onto your seats as I undress
and expose this Janice in court filings.
- Posted by Leah
Lax at 9:15 PM
- Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
- Labels: janice
wolk Grenadier, LeahLax2016, VALaw2010
Conclusion
The
fundamental right to Due Process the basic Freedom that our country stands for
–
The right to due process without Fraud from
Judges, Lawyers, Elected Officials it is a primary component of Freedom. The
right to a Fair Trial – a basic Constitutional right that has been the source
of the light of freedom that our country has given the World. Calling the Appellant Frivolous, rambling
documents etc is no different than
burning or spitting on the United States of America’s Flag.
Fact that this court has
refused Plaintiff her constitutional rights to have a case heard and to be
heard in front of a Judge with the Emergency Restraining Order shows bias.
Disciplinary
Responsibilities of this and all courts:
1. A judge who receives reliable information
indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a
violation of these Canons should take appropriate action. A judge having
knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of the Judicial Canons
that raises a substantial question as to the other judge's fitness for office
should inform the appropriate authorities.
2. A judge who receives reliable information
indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility should take appropriate action. A judge
having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that raises a substantial question as to the
lawyer's or Judge’s honesty, trustworthiness
or fitness as a lawyer or Judge in other respects should inform the Bar the
attorney is associated with and appropriate authorities.
That the legal profession is largely
self-governing. Although other professions also have been granted
powers of self-government, the legal profession is unique in this respect
because of the close relationship
between the profession and the processes of government and law enforcement.
This connection is manifested in the fact that ultimate authority over the
legal profession is vested largely in the courts.
That the Treason on the
Courts by the Judge have been, were, and are willful acts that were and are malicious,
violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, and grossly reckless against
Plaintiff.
That Plaintiff was denied her constitutional right of Due
Process in this court for being Catholic
and no longer party to the Old Boy Network. That under Title 42 §
1983 will show violation of rights protected by the Constitution and created by
Federal Statute that persons employed by the government acting under color of
federal law violated Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. That the Judges and Clerks
should be held responsible for their criminal actions. That an investigation into all Judges
and their relationship with the Defendants and others to protect the “TRUTH”
from coming out.
Defendants Civil
Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations abuse of
process, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
Civil conspiracy to
commit injurious falsehood with jwgrenadierisalair.blogspot.com that Plaintiff has a “protected
characteristic” which will be proven as
to why Plaintiff was sought out by Defendant and that factor is why Plaintiff
was targeted by Defendants
Defendants were in
collusion of civil conspiracy to intentionally inflict emotional distress.
That this court should move swiftly and send a strong message to
the people of the United States of America that Freedom and your rights are
still protected in the United States District
Court of the District of Columbia.
That sanctions should be
awarded to Plaintiff for the Negligence fo the Judge’s, the negligent
infliction of emotional distress inflicted on Plaintiff, the intentional
infliction of emotional distress of the
ex parte communications and criminal actions of the Judges and Defendants. That
these actions were and are willful acts malicious, violent, oppressive,
fraudulent, wanton, and grossly reckless.
That a Grand Jury to
investigate the actions of Defendants and Judge should be immediately
assembled.
That the appropriate
authorities should be notified of the theft of documents, and all other criminal
actions of Defendants and Judges, and other Judicial and government employees. That all orders. the Memorandum of Law in
this case should be reviewed by a Judge who is not bias.
June
15, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Wolk Greandier
15 W Spring Street
Alexandria, VA 22301
202-368-7178
jwgrenadier@gmail.com
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JANICE WOLK GRENADIER
Pro se
15 West Spring Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22301
jwgrenadier@gmail.com
202-368-7178
Plaintiff
v. No. 14-7020
September Term 2013
Civil Action No. 14-0162
Certificate of Service for Motion June 13, 2014
