VIRGINIA: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA JANICE WOLK GRENADIER Petitioner, v.

ILONA ELY GRENADIER HECKMAN And GREANDIER INVESTMENT CO, LTD, And DAVID MARK GRENADIER Respondents Record No. 110156 Case # CH010654

Motion for Disclosure of Law Used to Deny Appeal

Motion for Disclosure of Law used to Deny Petitioners Appeal & Reconsideration of Appeal
Wherefore Petitioner respectfully requests that the Supreme Court of Virginia disclosure of the law used to deny Appeal dated January 20, 2011 and Reconsideration of Appeal. In December of 2011 Justice Lemons disclosed that it was over a timing issue. Justice Lemons then informed Petitioner she would need to file a Motion to have the Law used to deny the appeal disclosed to Petitioner. The law then and now is very clear. If you are denied due process in any way the Judges order is VOID! Due Process is a Right of every citizen not a privilege. Petitioners Religious, Virginia Constitutional, United States Constitutional and Civil Rights have been violated since September of 2007. By the denial of the appeal Petitioner believes a strong message was sent to the Circuit Court Judges. That the Circuit Court Judges do not have to follow the Law and that when
1

they dont the Supreme Court will support them. Which the Circuit Court of Alexandria has once again not followed the rules of the Supreme Court and the Code of Virginia 17.105 (b). (See new Appeal Case # M011001482 for denial Petitioners Constitutional Rights to go in front of the Grand Jury) Respondents on February 3, 2011 filed a Motion to dismiss due to Petitioner not filing a Statement of Facts which was disingenuous. Respondents did this keeping in the spirit of the illegal and unprofessional behavior of Respondents and their attorneys disingenuous filings since September of 2007. The Supreme Court of Virginia had the file and the facts. Petitioner pro se has been maliciously manipulated by the Virginia Legal System. The Supreme Court of Virginia has erred in ignoring or not enforcing the Law of the Virginia Code, The United States Constitution is very clear the Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. It is very clear the Rule 17.1-105(b) was not followed. Thus the Judges lacked jurisdiction to decide this case. That Petitioner filed a motion in September of 2007 that should only take 7 days yet it to 75 days to be heard is further proof that the Clerk of Court in the City of Alexandria & the Judges in the Circuit Court in the City of Alexandria had not followed the law. The Judges of the Circuit Court are appointed to know and follow the law. That the Petitioner has been maliciously manipulated by the State of Virginia Legal System & Government Officials. That all parties knew Petitioner did not have the funds for an attorney. Petitioner has done her best to represent her and her daughters interests. That Judges must avoid the appearance of impropriety at all times especially to avoid appearing that Judges favor Respondents whos deceased husband and father, respectively, had been a member of the Circuit Court by improperly
2

selecting their replacements. This violation is particularly egregious when the interests of a pro se party suing an attorney are at stake. Wherefore Petitioner prays that the Supreme Court of Virginia responds to this motion within 10 Business days of filing. That the Supreme Court of Virginia discloses all Justices and The Law that was used to Deny Petitioners Appeal & Reconsideration. Petitioner prays that if in Review the Supreme Court of Virginia believes it has erred that they reverse the denial. Petitioner believes from the outline on the Virginia Supreme Court web site Petitioner met all timing issues involved in the Appeal process.

This 14th day May 2012

Janice Wolk Grenadier 15 West Spring Street Alexandria, Virginia 22301 703-836-9655 pro se

CERTIFICATE Pursuant to Rule 5:17, I hereby certify that I have hand delivered copies of this Motion to All parties and Hand delivered 6 copies to the Supreme Court in Richmond Virginia. The Petitioner is Janice Wolk Grenadier pro se 15 West Spring Street Alexandria, Virginia 22301 703-623-9655 jwolkgrenadier@aol.com The Respondent is Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman, Esquire & Grenadier Investment Co Ltd Represented by Grenadier Anderson Starace & Duffett 649 South Washington Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 703-683-9000 Around May, 2010 the following counsel started representing Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman, Esq and Grenadier Investment Co Ltd Dimuro Ginsburg PC Benard J. Dimuro, Esquire 908 King Street Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia, 22314 703-684-4333 The Respondent is David Mark Grenadier represented by: Michael J. Weiser, Esquire 510 King Street Suite 416 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 A copy of this Motion was hand delivered to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Virginia on April 20, 2012 and mailed to counsel for Appellees. This 14th day of May, 2012.

Janice Wolk Grenadier

4