JWG Writ of Error Coram Vobis

8/3/2019 JWG Writ of Error Coram Vobis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jwg-writ-of-error-coram-vobis 1/20



2. In addition, the following are named Defendants, for their roles in the

intentional or inadvertent DENIAL of the Citizen RIGHT to Trial by Jury

and DENIAL of Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking of

private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases.:

- Nolan B. Dawkins, Public servant, individually and in his official

capacity as a Judge of the Alexandria Circuit Court

- John E. Kloch, Public servant, individually and in his official


- Lisa Kemler, Public servant, individually and in her official


- John J. McGrath, Public Servant, individually and in his official

capacity as a Substitute Judge of Alexandria Circuit Court

- Thomas Fortkort, Public Servant, individually and in his official

capacity as a Substitute Judge of Alexandria Circuit Court

3. Further , the following are named Defendants Actions to DENY of Due

process of law; -- obligation of contracts; taking of private property, by

the theft or embezzlement of funds from the Grenadier Trust to the tune

of $90,000 or more, fraud on the Bellefonte Avenue property, and

involvement with a forgery on a Trust document.

- David Mark Grenadier, individually, and partner with Ilona Grenadier

in Grenadier Investment Co. Ltd.

- Grenadier Investment Co. Ltd. in its capacity as a “corporate citizen”

4. Constitution of Virginia ARTICLE I Bill of Rights Section 11 “prohibited

discrimination”, INCLUDING discrimination favoring State Bar members.

Petition for Writ of Error Coram Vobis - Grenadier v. Semonian, et al! page 2 of 19



5. Defendant Ilona Ely Grenadier, as a Virginia State Bar member and

(remarried) widow of a Virginia Judge has been a beneficiary of

discrimination in her favor by Defendant Judge Donald Haddock, who

stated to JWG “We love Ilona. You’ll never get a fair trial.” One question

before this court is: “Who is “We”? The other Bar buddy judges named

as defendants, or as the folk saying goes, the “mouse in his pocket”?

There is a witness to the statement of Judge Haddock’s bias for “Ilona”.

6. After Defendant J. Howe Brown, substitute judge, DENIED Plaintiff JWG

her RIGHT to a Trial by Jury, the cocky Defendant Ilona Ely Grenadier,

crowed at the Plaintiff that “Judge Brown called her all the time for legal

advice and they were great friends.” Under Court Discovery, subpoena

of phone records can validate the truth or falsity of part of Ilona’s assertion.

7. Virginia Canons of Judicial Conduct 2 B appears to be violated by both

judges, Haddock and Brown, a decision that a Special Grand Jury of Private

Citizens should be impaneled to decide, not a JIRC panel of fellow judges:

A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other

relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or

judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office

to advance the private interests of the judge or others; norshall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impressionthat they are in a special position to influence the judge. A

judge shall not testify as a character witness.

It is judicial error by both judges to have such bias in favor of Ilona.




8. Defendants Haddock, Brown, McGrath, Kloch, Dawkins, Kemler, and

Fortkort should be evaluated by a Special Grand Jury of Private Citizens,

not a JIRC panel of fellow judges as with the rare to take disciplinary action,

for negligence in their duty to Canon of Judicial Conduct 3D:

Disciplinary Responsibilities.

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 these Canons that raises a substantialquestion as to the other judge's fitness for office should

inform the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.

9. In relation to Defendant Ilona Ely Grenadier, a former wife of a Judge

and a highly favored member of the Virginia State Bar, Defendant

Judges Haddock, Brown, McGrath, Kloch, Dawkins, Kemler, and

Fortkort should be evaluated by a Special Grand Jury of Private Citizens,

not a JIRC panel of fellow judges as with the rare to take disciplinary action,

for negligence in their duty to Canon of Judicial Conduct 3D:

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 alawyer has committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility that raises a substantial

question as to the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or

fitness as a lawyer in other respects should inform the

Virginia State Bar.




10. In relation to Defendant Ilona Ely Grenadier, a former wife of a Judge

and a highly favored member of the Virginia State Bar, Defendants

McCauley and Davis have failed to “self-govern” the “legal profession”,

especially reprehensible because their JOB at the Virginia State Bar is

to a lesser or greater degree, discipline of errant Bar members. Both

have failed in their duty to the Citizens of Virginia, and specifically one

Citizen, Plaintiff JWG, to her serious disadvantage, to the considerable

advantage of much favored Bar member, Ilona Ely Grenadier.

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.

11. The current “close relationship” of the Virginia State Bar and the Courts

of Virginia, from the Virginia supreme Court on down to the lowliest

Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, could be defined by a

non-Bar Citizen objective observer as an “incestuous” relationship, that

has created a “privileged class”, a violation of Equal Justice for All.

12. Statistics are available of the VERY low percentage of Disciplinary actions

against Bar members, far lower than a Citizen prosecuted by a Bar

member, even one like Commonwealth Attorney Paul Thomson who was

reported for “skimming money from drug dealers” and committing adultery.




13. The statistics for discipline of Virginia State Bar members defined as

“judges” is even lower than for regular, run of the mill, “lawyers”.

14. There is a Constitutional principle of Equal Justice Under the Law, that

there should not be erected “separate tribunals” for privileged classes of

Citizens. Both the JIRC for judges, and the Bar Disciplinary Committees

are in direct violation of that lofty Constitutional principle of Equal Justice.

15. Cited in item #1 above, is § 8.01-677 regarding Writ of Error, Coram

Vobis. The Code of Virginia states:

The operative words are “may be”, not “shall be”. In 2007, the Virginia

supreme Court ruled in favor of a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Vobis, not on

a motion; showing that however titled, Petition or Motion, the Court is open

minded to either. Given the 2007 Neighbors precedent, the Petition for Writ of

Error Coram Vobis has gained a new lease on life, from its archaic origins.

16. The error is clear. A Citizen may NOT be denied a RIGHT to Jury Trial.


§ 8.01-677. Errors corrected on motion instead of writ of error

coram vobis.

For any clerical error or error in fact for which a judgment may

be reversed or corrected on writ of error coram vobis, the same

may be reversed or corrected on motion, after reasonable notice,

by the court.

(Code 1950, § 8-485; 1977, c. 617.)



17. Due to judicial bias in favor of the deceased judge’s wife, Defendant

Ilona Grenadier, Defendant Brown denied the RIGHT of Plaintiff JWG to a

Trial by Jury. A JURY, not a judge is the only proper body to evaluate the

facts and the law to determine if Judge Brown violated his Trust.

18. Due to judicial bias in favor of the deceased judge’s wife, Defendant

Ilona Grenadier, Defendants Haddock, Kloch, Dawkins, Kemler, Fortkort

denied the RIGHT of Plaintiff JWG to full and fair Due Process of the law.

A JURY, not a judge is the only proper body to evaluate the facts and the

law to determine if these judges violated their Trust.

19. So accepting that MOST Americans, both laymen, lawyers and jurists,

and jurors still believe in this new century and this new millennium, this Year

of Our Lord 2011, that the RIGHT to a Trial by Jury is a most precious,

and most inviolable RIGHT, then it would not include “frivolous” --

“permits a district court to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis if the cause of action is frivolous or fails to state a claim uponwhich relief can be granted. …”

20. Eliminating now the issue of lack of good faith in the In Forma Pauperis

application and affidavit, and eliminating any question of frivolous where a

Citizens Complaint about being DENIED the RIGHT to TRIAL by JURY, and

later while specifically allowed by Virginia law, one or more of the Defendants




DENIED Plaintiff Grenadier access to the City of Alexandria GRAND JURY

on 11 October a.d. 2011, then that leaves just the question of:

“...or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. …”

21. Federal courts in many cases have ordered the state courts to retry a

case with a Jury Trial. THAT IS THE ERROR of the Court, the DENIAL of

the CITIZEN RIGHT to a TRIAL BY JURY. A Jury of one’s peers to decide

the facts of the case, as applied to the Virginia law, would very likely have

far less bias in favor of a Virginia State Bar member, and former wife of a

Virginia judge than would a Virginia Judge, such as the Defendant judges

herein named.

22. That is the simple claim of Plaintiff Grenadier, to grant the relief of

Order of a new trial with a Jury.

23. The SECOND “Error” of the Virginia Courts in this case is in regard to

the Code of Virginia 17.1-105(B):

“If all the judges of any court of record are so situated in respect toany case, civil or criminal, pending in their court as to render itimproper, in their opinion, for them to preside at the trial, unless thecause or proceeding is removed, as provided by law, they shall enter the fact of record and the clerk of the court shall at once certify thesame to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall designatea judge of some other court of record or a retired judge of any suchcourt to preside at the trial of such case.

Defendant Ed Semonian VIOLATED this Code of Virginia LAW. It says

“shall at once certify to the Chief Justice…” Semonian DID NOT DO SO.




24. A detailed discussion of the manipulations or violations of the Plaintiff

JWG’s RIGHTS to Due Process of Law by each of several Defendants

named above was provided in the Original Complaint, so will not be

repeated here due to its length. To apply the KISS principle, Keep It Short

and Simple - the Defendant public servants of the Alexandria Courts, along

with various compliant substitute judges, ignored the law of Virginia to

appoint a judge of their own choosing, to protect Ilona, rather than obey the

Virginia law that states that the Chief Justice “...SHALL DESIGNATE a

judge of some other court of record…” (EMPHASIS ADDED).

25. The facts are clear, to an objective world...

A. One or more of the Defendants were involved in the DENIAL of the

RIGHT to TRIAL BY JURY in 2008.

B. One or more of the Defendants were involved in the DENIAL of the

RIGHT under Virginia Law for a Citizen or a group of Citizens to ask the

Circuit Court to convene a Special Grand Jury on 11 October a.d. 2011.

C. On 21 November 2011, Chief Justice signed an ORDER assigning

Judge Potter of Prince William County to preside over the Grand Jury on

13 February 2012, ADMISSION there is a RIGHT of a Citizen to present

to a Grand Jury to expose wrongdoing by government agencies or

officials; thereby effectively OVERRULING the ORDER of 13 June 2011.




26. The laws are clear, to an objective world…

A. 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 11. Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking 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 GeneralAssembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, nor any law whereby private property shall be takenor damaged for public uses, without just compensation, theterm "public uses" to be defined by the General Assembly; andthat the right to be free from any governmental discriminationupon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mereseparation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination.

That in controversies respecting property, and in suitsbetween man and man, trial by jury is preferable to anyother, and ought to be held sacred. The General Assemblymay limit the number of jurors for civil cases in courts of recordto not less than five.

B. Code of Virginia § 19.2-191 (2) and on, plus the October 2010 edition of

the Virginia supreme Court Handbook for Grand Jurors Section 23, titled

“Convening”, states:

“Any citizen or group of citizens may ask the Circuit Court of acity or county to convene a Special Grand Jury.”




Handbook for Grand Jurors, Section 26, titled “Functions of a Special

Grand Jury” states:

“As has been set out in Section 3, a Special Grand Jury iscomposed of from seven to eleven citizens of a city or county,selected by the Circuit Court and summoned to investigateany condition which tends to promote criminal activity in thecommunity or by any governmental authority, agency or official.”

“The Special Grand Jury, composed entirely of private citizens,is the one non-political body with legal authority to make suchinvestigations.”

27. Without question a “condition which tends to promote criminal

activity in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or

official.” is when a government authority like Defendant J. Howe Brown,

abusing his trust as a judge in the Commonwealth of Virginia, denies a

Citizen the Section 11 of the Virginia Bill of Rights RIGHT to a Trial by

Jury in a Civil Trial involving property, the funds embezzled from a Trust

by the wife of a Chief Judge of Alexandria, a powerful, politically

connected Bar member, Defendant Ilona Ely Grenadier. Therefore the

commission of the wrongdoing by Defendant Brown, validates the use of

the Special Grand Jury request by Plaintiff Grenadier, that was DENIED

in a coordinated action by the elected servants, Clerk of the Circuit Court,

Semonian, and Commonwealth Attorney, Sengel, with the presiding judge

of the Grand Jury, Haddock, so the Plaintiff claim of denial of RIGHTS to




protection under the Code of Virginia is far from frivolous, as the law

states:

“The Special Grand Jury, composed entirely of private citizens,is the one non-political body with legal authority to make suchinvestigations.”

Important to note is the specification of “Grand Jury, composed entirely

of private citizens” because the Founding Fathers knew that Private

Citizens as opposed to “Officers of the Court” lawyers or judges, are less

likely to rule based on “fear or favor” than members of the Bar today.

28. The issues for a Jury of Private Citizens to hear and decide is if there is

merit to the claims of Plaintiff JWG, or if as one judge stated, they are

frivolous:

“various public servants and members of the Virginia State Bar todeny her “access to the Grand Jury to make a Presentment for Billof Indictment for Forging, Uttering, and Forging a Public Document”

against one of the named defendants and her law firm. (Plaintiff’sComplaint #1). Plaintiff alleges further that, when she contacted the

Virginia State Bar about the alleged forgery, Bar employees, also

named as defendants in the Complaint, “aided the cover-up of Bar member crimes.” (Pl.’s Compl. #2) These allegations are

deemed frivolous.”

29. Embezzlement of $90,000 from a Trust Account by a member of the

Virginia State Bar, Ilona Ely Grenadier, widow of the former Chief Judge of

Alexandria, is not a “frivolous” complaint by the Plaintiff. A prior Bar




member Trustee of the same trust, Jim Arthur, was convicted in Federal

Court for much the same action as later done by Bar member Ilona

Grenadier, and Arthur wrote a letter to Ilona Grenadier that some of her

actions were not proper even when he was still Trustee. Arthur was

disbarred. Refusal by the Virginia State Bar to investigate or impose any

disciplinary action against Bar member Ilona Ely Grenadier is not a

“frivolous” complaint by the Plaintiff.

30. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays this Court issue injunctive relief:

As Pro Se, Plaintiff JWG is at a severe disadvantage in seeking a fair trial

given the Defendants are not “common citizens”, but rather are Bar

members, trained in the law, and Virginia State Bar members, “Bar

buddies”, with others in the Courts who control the Court schedule (docket)

like Defendant Semonian, control what gets prosecuted, like Defendant

Sengel, or what Motions get granted, like Defendants Brown and Haddock;

therefore Plaintiff prays this Court will assign a Court Appointed Attorney

to provide “assistance of counsel”, an attorney not a member of the

Virginia State Bar, due to Conflict of Interest thereby, but permitted to

practice by provision of Pro Hac Vice, an “honest, fearless of judges and

fearless of the Virginia State Bar” out-of-state lawyer.




31. And WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays this Court issue equitable relief to

stated claims as follows:

1.Issue a Writ of Mandamus to Order a de novo Trial by Jury of the

trial of 2008, when a Jury Trial was Denied by Defendant Brown.

2.Issue injunctive relief commanding a further, detailed forensic

investigation into the collusion, or racketeering of the named

Defendants above, building on FBI files and investigation of convicted

Bar member Jim Arthur, Trustee, and Ilona Grenadier, Agent and

Cashier of the Sonia Grenadier Trust. (See Exhibits B and C).

NOTE: That Jim Arthur was convicted in FEDERAL court, not Virginia

Courts, for which there may be a reason of “protecting fellow Bar

members” as is seen in this case where Virginia Courts have “protected

fellow Bar member” Ilona Grenadier from her “Bilking the Elderly” by

embezzling around $90,000 from the Sonia Grenadier Trust, as Arthur

did too.

3.Issue declaratory relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

4.Issue other relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

5.Award plaintiff her costs of litigation. Under United States Code, Pro

se litigants may be entitled to Attorney fees and costs under the Civil










Federal Exhibit B - (denied) Grand Jury Exhibit E - “Lawyer Gets 5 Years for Bilking Elderly”







The CHIEF JUSTICE KINSER ORDER to theleft affirming Plaintiff JWG her rightto make a Presentment to a Grand JuryDATED 21 November 2011after being DENIED on 11 October 2011

effectively OVERRULES...

...the Virginia supreme Court ORDER belowDATED 13 June 2011.

The underlying issue of graft and corruption bythe wife of a Virginia Judge, a member of theVirginia State Bar, an agency of the Virginiasupreme Court, is the same; the FACTS arethe same, the LAWS violated by one orseveral of the Defendants are the same.



Petition for Writ of Error Coram Vobis - Grenadier v Semonian et al page 20 of 19

Documents

JWG Writ of Error Coram Vobis