IN THE :

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN RE: JANICE WOLK GRENADIER
PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF PROSE POOR PERSON
V.
IN RE: JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUBIA
RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT
PETITON FOR WRIT OF MAMDAMUS PROHIBITION
FOR IGNORING THE LAW
Re: JANICE WOLK GRENADIER V.
COMES NOW Janice Wolk Grenadier petitions the above Court for a Writ of Mandamus
and Prohibition to stop the criminal acts and action of CHIEF JUDGE RICHARD W.
ROBERTS, JUDGE RICHARD J LEON AND JUDGE ROSEMARY COLLYER ON CASE
No. 1:15 mc 01540 and to hold them and there Orders to the Law and Rules of the
Supreme Court and of the United States Constitution which she is ignoring. That Petitioner
requests Oral Argument to present further evidence. That the Petitioner comes to this
court to have a Stay on the Case in Virginia Case No. CL 15 - 003661

immediately

stayed and the case opened appropriately as it should have been. That this Court is
unique in it is the court of HATE crimes through out the United States, but not only that this
is the court when there are multiple jurisdictions as this case has. As well as the main
Plaintiff Ilona Grenadier Heckman being a resident of the District of Columbia since on or
around 1987. THAT THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA IS
SUPPOSDLY MORE THAN ANY COURT SUPPOSDLY THE COURT OF THE PEOPLE
NOT OF THE JUDGES AND THEIR FRIENDS TO Rule in Bias, Favoritism, Cronyism,
Bias, Retribution, Retaliation, and for personal or friends financial gain.
Petitioner reminds the Court she is Poor ProSe Litigants and the Law:
Many pro se litigants will use this in their pleadings; "Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In

Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria, pleadings
are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct
594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also
See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."
In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a
lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957
"The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may
be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper
decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings
shall be construed to do substantial justice."

That when a case / complaint is dismissal under Rule 12-B: If there is legal sufficiency to show
Plaintiff is entitled to relief under his Complaint. A Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) also Neitzke v. Williams,
109 S. Ct. 1827, 1832 (1989). Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a
complaint's factual allegations. In applying the Conley standard, the Court will "accept the truth of the wellpleaded factual allegations of the Complaint."

That Petitioner is asking this court for Relief with this case handled professional by the Clerk, by the
Judges giving Defendant Due Process with a Judge that will follow the law. That this court has
shown a pattern and practice of denying Due Process to protect one of their Own Divorce Lawyer
Ilona Grenadier Heckman since 2012.
The issues with the facts are:
Issue 1: Lack of Jurisdiction by the Judge: That in order for the Judge to have Jurisdiction they
must not show Bias, Favoritism or Cronyism. This Judge has shown all three in Memorandums of
Law, ruling from chambers not from the bench, the appearance of ex-parte communications, the lack
of respect for a ProSe Litigant.
On its own initiative, the court has ignored the laws and rules when they did not hold Judges
accountable for violating the Judicial Canons and denying Petitioner any open hearing in the court.
Petitioner has submitted an objection et al in opposition, reconsideration on Orders barring Petitioner
the same due process and equal protection guaranteed to other citizens. Based upon the history
Circuit judicial conduct, and the involvement of court judges in serious misconduct being exposed by
Petitioner, it would be a virtual impossibility for Petitioner to have the constitutional and statutory
2

access to federal court and to the protections and defenses guaranteed by the U.S. form of
government.
Objection is based upon multiple bases, including the pattern of Court refusal to provide relief from
hard-core civil rights violations; the aiding and abetting of these violations; blocking Petitioner from
reporting serious federal crimes implicating federal personnel, including federal judges; due process
and equal protection rights. Refusing to address the issues raised by Petitioner, refusing to issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law, has been standard practice of court judges. Never once has
any of Petitioner's major federal causes of action and defenses been addressed in this court and in the
Eastern Division of Virgina.
The reason for denying Petitioner access to federal court and to federal protections was due to a
convoluted series of corrupt judicial acts associated with a scheme to silence Petitioner's reporting of
serious federal crimes implicating federal officials, and to block his federal defenses against the
retaliatory acts judicially taken against her. That Petition sought relief from the judicial seizure5 and
looting of Petitioner's life's assets after she was forced6 to exercise Bankruptcy remedies to obtain
relief from an ongoing pattern of criminal activity of the banks and lawyers in judicially-inflicted
civil and constitutional violations.
Issue 2: Lack of Discovery, Admissions and Depositions : That without a Fair hearing, time for
Discovery, Admissions and Depositions can a Plaintiff put a full case together. That the Bill of
Complaint Clearly States the Claims, Clearly gives evidence of the Defendants Criminal Acts and
Actions thru e-mails, letters, documents filed in the courts with forged signatures. That the case
should be Judged as requested by a Jury and not a Judge who is ruling from Chambers and ignoring
the Law, dening all access to the Courts.
Issue 4: Due Process for a Pro Se Litigant: The Judge ruling from Chambers and not the Bench
does not give Petitioner the right to argue and show evidence of the TRUTH or answer questions
the Judge may have. That it is obvious the Petitioner has been denied Due Process in favor Lawyers
and to protect other Judiciary members that have dirty hands. That the evidence in the responses to
the Defendants that did respond are boiler plate responses that the Judges have decided to rule on
from Chambers.
3

. The constitutional and statutory provisions directly and indirectly involved in this Petition, each of
which is being judicially violated, includes:
* Due Process protections as guaranteed by the statutes and Constitution of the United States. Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due
process
* Equal protection of the law as available to other citizens.
* First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances. Fourth Circuit judges have repeatedly
blocked Petitioner's attempts to exercise this right, and when he has exercised it, Fourth Circuit
judges have retaliated and inflicted great and irreparable personal and financial harm upon him.
* Fifth Amendment right to be protected against taking of liberties and properties without due
process of law. These protections were and are being repeatedly violated by federal judges,
destroying - Petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights to be secure in life, liberty and properties, to be free
from fear of government persecution, and quality of life,16 with the additional violation of inflicting
great fear upon Petitioner from the corrupt acts.
Title 28 USC Sections 1331, 1343, guaranteeing to a citizen the right to federal court access and
protections. Federal judges have repeatedly violated these statutory rights, unlawfully and
unconstitutionally dismissing each and every action, fraudulently placing a frivolous label on the
filing to "support" their dismissal actions. Since 1983, federal judges have unlawfully and
unconstitutionally dismissed every action which sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and which
sought to report the federal crimes.
* Title 28 USC Sections 2201, 2202. Federal judges have repeatedly dismissed every action in
which Petitioner sought a declaration of Petitioner's personal and property rights, to defend against
the taking of his assets in a sham, with no hearings. That this court in supporting Judge Brinkema has
denied all fair access to the courts by the Fourth Circuit.
* Title 42 USC Sections 1983-1986.A pattern of judicially-inflicted civil rights violations,
perpetrated initially in the District of Columbia Court, then the Eastern Division of Alexandria courts,
and then expanded by Fourth Circuit federal judges in a convoluted attempt to obstruct justice by
blocking Petitioner's reporting of the subversive and criminal acts which she and has uncovered, and
blocking Petitioner's defenses against these judicial acts.
* Bivens doctrine. The protection of the Bivens doctrine were denied to Petitioner, as he sought relief
from people acting under color of federal law who were violating her civil and constitutional rights,
4

committing these violations in an obvious criminal conspiracy.

* Title 42 USC Sections 1961-1965. The criminal conspiracy element of the civil rights violations
occurring both in the California and in federal courts, aiding and abetting the underlying criminal acts
that Petitioner sought to expose.
* Title 18 USC Section 241. This criminal statute was, and is, being violated by federal judges and
Justice Department attorneys as they continue to retaliate against Petitioner for exercising federal
remedies against the judicially inflicted civil rights violations in the sham federal action and for
seeking relief under federal remedies.
* Title 18 USC Sections 1512 and 1513. These federal statutes are being violated by federal judges
and Justice Department attorneys who are continuing to retaliate against Petitioner, both a victim and
an informant, for seeking to report federal crimes in which they themselves are implicated.
* Fourth Amendment right to be protected against unreasonable seizure of properties. After
Petitioner was forced to seek relief from the hard-core civil and constitutional violations in Chapter
13. After she exercised this protection Fourth Circuit judges have seized and eventually looted
Petitioner's life assets, violating additional federal protections, including the statutory and
constitutional requirement of a noticed hearing; a hearing; legally-required cause; and other
violations. Chapter 13 forced into. After he exercised this protection Fourth Circuit judges seized and
eventually looted Petitioner's life assets her home , violating additional federal protections, including
the statutory and constitutional requirement of a noticed hearing; a hearing; legally-required cause;
and other violations.
The Thirteenth Amendment, provides in pertinent part that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except
as a punishment for crime....., shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".
These judges through their private conduct in conspiracy with the lawyer defendants, caused the Court to
effectuate this Plaintiff to "Compulsory Involuntary Servitude", an act punishable under Title 18 1584 as a
criminal act.
The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and Equal Protection clause (Section 1), expressly declares
no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law..."
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, provides in pertinent part that "No person shall hold any office, civil
or military, under the United States or under any State.....who, having previously taken an oath,....as an
executive or judicial officer of any State to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same...."
Title 42 USC 1983 provides in relevant part that: "every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State....subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution. ..shall be liable to the party injured...."
A Title 42 1985 action which seeks compensatory and punitive damages in conjunction with equitable relief as
in this case is considered a legal claim, entititling Plaintiff to a jury trial. See An-Ti v. Michigan
Technological Univ., 493 F. Supp. 1137. Plaintiff alleges a "class based", invidiously discriminatory animus is
behind the conspirators' action as the Court records reflect. That the actions were clearly a product of bias
and prejudice of the Court. See Griffen v. Breckridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971)

Statement of Material Facts

That Plaintiff has filed in the District of Columbia due to the knowledge and pattern and
practice in Virginia she would never get a fair trial in Virginia including the Virginia Federal
Courts
. 1. That on or around October 22, 2015 Defendant Janice Wolk Grenadier received in the mail an
Order and documents that Defendant is re-submitted into this court after talking with this court and
under the courts acknowledgement that a misunderstanding was had.
1. That the Documents filed in this court to the move the case to this court were wrongfully sent
back. That the Defendant Janice Wolk Grenadier had a right to move the case and this is why
the Claims are outlined in a Counter Claim / Cross Complaint. That the law as defined under
Jurisdiction in the Counter Claim Cross Complaint which the Defendant, Pro Se has
followed, is Poor and has requested an IFP that she has not had any communication about.
That the IFP was not returned to Defendant as well as the work sheet with the case stating the
case was being moved. That the Defendant has reattached a copy of the worksheet and IFP
which Defendant has received approval of in the past from this court.
2. That David Grenadier is an adversary (Plaintiff) and so does not need to sign the Documents
nor does he do an IFP. The IFP is only for Defendant who is the moving party.
3. That Petitioner then called to check on the case to see where her IFP stood and was lied to by
the ProSe Division that it was still in review. That in Truth Judge Leon Richards had filed an
Order illegally denying the move, by all appearance with Bias et al
4. That on December 3, 2015 after discussions with the Clerks office Petitioner filed to Re-Open
et al that to date have not been properly filed in the courts and sits in Chambers with Judge
Rosemary Collyer who there is question to her relationship with Hillary Colllyer who when
with DiMuroGinsberg in Virginia lied in court, lied in court documents. The problem in the
Judiciary is the Judges whom Police themselves and are ignoring the obligation to turn these
lawyers in for appropriate discipline when they perjure themselves in court or court
documents.
6

5. That a Letter was also sent to the Chief Judge with follow up of phone calls that to date have
been ignored.
A Writ is an unusual and extreme for Petitioner to have to go. But, Petitioner is being discriminated
under the Civil Rights laws for being Catholic and Poor.

FEDERAL JUDGES LACK JURISDICTION TO VOID STATUTORY AND

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS Obviously, federal judges, entrusted to uphold the laws
and Constitution of the United States, lack jurisdiction to:
* Void the rights and protections guaranteed under our form of government, laws, and Constitution.
* Deny to any citizen the right to a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for the hard-core
violations of federally protected rights stated in the complaints and proven by reference to court
records.
Ninth Circuit Courts As A Racketeering Enterprise - Federal offenses related to refusing to
perform a duty: Federal judges have the responsibilities, the duty, to receive testimony and
evidence of the federal crimes that Plaintiff discovered, and to provide declaratory and injunctive
relief from the gross violations raised in Petitioner's federal causes of actions. Refusal to perform
these responsibilities violate federal statutes, including, inter alia:
A. Title 28 U.S.C. 1331. Jurisdiction and duty to provide a federal court forum for relief from violations of
federally-protected rights.
B. Title 28 U.S.C. 1343. Makes any person who fails to prevent or aid in the prevention of
civil/constitutional violations, who has the power to do so, financially liable to the party that suffers the harm.
C. Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 through 1986. Financially liability for refusing to prevent the harm associated with
civil rights violations.

FAILURE TO PERFORM A DUTY TO PROVIDE RELIEF

D. Culpable omission of a fiduciary duty to receive evidence of federal crimes and failure to provide relief.
It is a federal offense for any officer/judge to refuse to perform a duty owed to Plaintiff, or any other citizen,
under the causes of actions stated herein. Failure to perform a duty constitutes an assault or battery, a federal
offense, when a federal official fails to perform a duty to act. See W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law 21011
(2d ed. 1986). In People v. Burden, 72 Cal.App.3d 603 (1977) similar analysis was utilized. The principal of
culpable omissions is no stranger to federal law. For instance, Title 28 USC 1343 makes any person liable
for damages when that person fails to prevent or aid in the prevention of civil right violations, and the victim
suffers harm. In California, for instance, See Barclay's Official California Code of Regulations, Title 11, 1081
(1991), the law requires, among other things, that officers prevent crime, protect life, ensure equal justice, and
blow the whistle on unethical fellow officials. California Government code section 1222, approvingly cited in
People v. Pringle, 151 Cal.App.3d 754, 858 (1984), allows punishment of officers for failing to perform their
duties "where no special provision is made for the
punishment of such delinquency."
E. Derivative liability arises when a person has a duty to act and then fails, or refuses, to act. Only defenses
against failure to act is when there are mitigating evidence that the failure to act was due to negligence or
accident. Substantial evidence shows that defendants willfully failed, and refused, to protect Stich, knowing
that Stich was suffering great and irreparable harms, and that these harms would continue to occur.
Defendants' failure and refusal to act occurred with the full knowledge of the criminal nature of their refusal.
Defendant's guilty mens rea is clearly established.
F. Guilty of betrayal of a trust. Federal judges have the duty to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United
States; to provide constitutional and statutory protections to a person suffering from the violations of federally
protected rights. Violating these protections, aiding and abetting those committing the violations, makes the
federal judges guilty of a betrayal of a trust.
G. Duty to report criminal acts under California Penal Code. California Penal Code section 387, requires a
corporate manager or executive who had actual knowledge of a serious concealed danger to notify the
appropriate regulatory agency within 15 days. Failure to do so constitutes a felony. This would include
reporting criminal acts.
H. Guilty of felonies, including:
* Inflicting harm upon a victim or informant (18 USC 1512, 1513).
* Inflicting harm upon a citizen in retaliation for exercising rights and protections under the laws and
Constitution of the United States.
* Misprision of felonies, obstruction of justice, becoming an accomplice, and other federal crimes.
As a former federal investigator authorized to make these determinations, Petitioner would classify the Fourth
Circuit courts as a racketeering enterprise. This group of judges have consistently blocked the reporting of
major criminal activities implicating federal officials. It has persecuted concerned citizens seeking to expose
this corruption. In Petitioner's case these judges have inflicted enormous personal and financial harm through
a pattern of record-setting civil right violations through misuse of the federal judiciary.

DISTRICT CIRCUIT JUDGES HAVE, AND ARE, INFLICTING, AND CAUSING TO BE

INFLICTED, GREAT HARM UPON PETITIONER AND THE UNITED STATES
The actions by Fourth Circuit judges ignoring Petitioner's attempts to report criminal activities by
federal officials and others make possible the continuation of the criminal and subversive activities
discovered by Petitioner and other present and former federal and state personnel and investigators.
8

These same judges are blocking Petitioner's attempts to expose the judicial corruption in Chapter
11/12/13 proceedings that impoverish thousands of people yearly, ad is denying Due Process to the
Petitioner.
SUMMARY
The issues are serious. They are of great national importance. With the nation's increasing attention to
crimes, these crimes by Fourth Circuit federal judges (and the underlying crimes being covered up)
are of far greater gravity, and sets the mindset for government and nongovernment conduct
throughout the United States. No reasonable person could fail to recognize the gravity of this rampant
judicial corruption occurring under the guidance of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Federal law dictates prompt and meaningful relief, which should include: That all Documents that
Plaintiff has filed should be used in assessing these issues which includes documents that are in
Chambers with Judge Rosemary Collyer.
Relief requested: A stay in the State of Virginia on any and all hearing as well as an immediate Judge
assigned to this case who will hear it on its merit, the documents, the discovery and all TRUTHS
supposedly your best defense.
Wherefore this court should on its calendar as soon as possible schedule Oral Arguments in regard to
the above allegations, or a Trial by Jury if applicable should be had by Petitioner Janice Wolk
Grenadier,
Exhibits Attached:
Exhibit
1
2
3
4
5
5

Description
Order Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts
Memorandum to the Clerk of Court Oct. 25, 2015
Order Judge Richard Leon
Motion of Recuse under 28 USC 144, 455 (a)(b)(2)
Judges Boasberg, Howell, Walton, Sullivan, Jackson, Huvelle,
Leon, Kollar-Kotelly
Letter Chief Judge Richard Roberts
Letter Rosemary Collyer

Pages
1
1
1
6