VIRGINIA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF the cITY OF aLEXANDRIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
jANICE wOLK
gRENAIDER
Case
# CH991234
PLANTIFf
vs.
DAVID
MARK GRENADIER
DEFENDANTS.
1.
Motion for the Circuit Court Judges Kemler,
Dawkins and Clark to recuse themselves following the directions of the law
under Virginia Supreme Court Rule 17.1 -105 (b)
2.
Motion
for Property Settlement Agreement in the Divorce between Plaintiff and
Defendant as Defendant has acted in a Fraudulent Manor since October of 1985 –
New evidence a in recent weeks supports this
3.
Motion
Demand Trial by Jury and Change of Venue
1. COMES
NOW PLAINTIFF
requests under the law that the presiding Judges, Kemler, Dawkins and Clark file the
appropriate paper work under 17. 1- 105(b) to recuse themselves from hearing
any Motions or Trial on this case. The attached letter dated July 14, 2013
states the Plaintiff is in the process of filing suit against above judges and
clerk of court for their actions. The suit will be filed in Federal Court under
42 United States Code standards 1983.
This suit asks for Relief of all orders made in violation of the Law
that Due Process of Law is allowed and further issue relief as the court deems
appropriate.
While
a Judge performing Judicial functions may enjoy Immunity, denial of
constitutional and civil rights are absolutely not a judicial function and
conflicts with any definition of a Judicial function.
17.1-105 B. If all
the judges of any court of record are so situated in respect to any case, civil
or criminal, pending in their court as to render it improper, in their opinion,
for them to preside at the trial, unless the cause 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 the same to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who
shall designate a judge of some other court of record or a retired judge of any
such court to preside at the trial of such case.
2. COMES NOW PLAINTIFF requests
that a trial date be set with a demand for Jury for plaintiff to present that there was
no property settlement on the grounds of fraud by Defendant. With respect to
the conduct that constitutes fraud, Delaware's high court held that these
showings were required: Plaintiff will
show (1) false representation, of facts, made by the defendant; (2) that
defendant's knowledge, was that the
representation was false and was made with reckless indifference to the truth;
and (3) was done with purpose and an intent to induce the plaintiff to act or
refrain from acting. Schmeusser v. Schmeusser , 559 A.2d 1294 (Del. 1989).
E.g., Billington v. Billington , 220 Conn. 212, 595 A.2d 1377 (1991) Plaintiff
will show that (1) false representation
was made as a statement of fact; (2) that statements was untrue and was known
to be so by Defendant; (3) that statements were made with the intent of
inducing reliance); Despain v. Despain , 855 P.2d 254 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) Plaintiff
will prove (1) that a representation was made, (2) concerning a presently
existing material fact, (3) which was false, (4) which the Defendant (a) knew to be false and (b) made recklessly, knowing that he had sufficient
knowledge upon which to base such representation, (5) for the purpose of
inducing the Plaintiff to act upon it).
3.
COMES NOW
PLAINTIFF Demands a Trial by Jury and Change of Venue.
That
under Federal Law and Virginia Law Plaintiff has the right to a
Trial by Jury:
§ 8.01-336.
Jury trial of right; waiver of jury trial; court-ordered jury trial; trial by
jury of plea in equity; equitable claim.
A. The right of trial by jury as declared in Article I,
Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia and by statutes thereof shall be preserved
inviolate to the parties.
B. Waiver of jury trial. - In any action at law in which the
recovery sought is greater than $100, exclusive of interest, unless one of the
parties demands that the case or any issue thereof be tried by a jury, or in a
criminal action in which trial by jury is dispensed with as provided by law,
the whole matter of law and fact may be heard and judgment given by the court.
C. Court-ordered jury trial. - Notwithstanding any provision
in this Code to the contrary, in any action asserting a claim at law in which there
has been no demand for trial by jury by any party, a circuit court may on its
own motion direct one or more issues, including an issue of damages, to be
tried by a jury.
D. Trial by jury of plea in equity. - In any action in which a
plea has been filed to an equitable claim, and the allegations of such plea are
denied by the plaintiff, either party may have the issue tried by jury.
E. Suit on equitable claim. - In any suit on an equitable
claim, the court may, of its own motion or upon motion of any party, supported
by such party's affidavit that the case will be rendered doubtful by
conflicting evidence of another party, direct an issue to be tried before an
advisory jury.
Plaintiff demands a change of Venue due to the actions of the
Clerk of Court, Commonwealth, Attorney and Judges in the Circuit Court of
Alexandria due to their ability to influence and tamper with a Jury. as
Plaintiff has witnessed them tampering with the Grand Jury and Plaintiff’s
files in the Clerk’s office in the Circuit Court.
July 15, 2013
Janice Wolk Grenadier
15 West Spring Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22301
jwolkgrenadier@aol.com
202-368-7178
Certificate of
Service
Emailed to David Mark Grenadier at renovo1@msn.com and
mailed to his last known attorney whom did not respond to phone calls or
e-mails to Lana Manitta of LMManitta@rrbmdk.com,
Rich RosenthalBrincefield Manitta Dzubin
& Kroeger, LLP - 201 North Union Street, Suite 140,
Alexandria, VA 22314 - Phone: 703.299.3440.
July 15, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment