UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

_______
JANICE WOLK GRENADIER
Pro se
Plaintiff
v.

Civil Action No. 1:14 cv 00827

No. 15-1169

BWW LAW GROUP

HOWARD N. BIERMAN
EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC
MARK R. GALBRAITH Lost License
WELLS FARGO
BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a - as successor-in-interest to LaSALLE BANK,
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC
Defendants,
Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities.

MOTION TO VACATE ALL ORDERS BY JUDGE LEONI M. BRINKMA

DUE TO LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WITH 4 OUT OF 5 OF HER
PERSONAL INVESTMENTS FROM 2003 LINKED TO BANKS THAT DEAL IN
MORTGAGES OR TO INVESTMENT FIRMS THAT DEAL IN MORTGAGE BACK
SECURITIES OR THE US TREASURY USED TO BAIL OUT THE
MOTGAGE CRISIS
THAT THIS MOTION BE HEARD BY THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THIS CIRCUIT OR A
JUDGE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PERSONAL OR FINANCIAL CONFLICT
COMES NOW PLAINTIFF DEMANDS that Judge Brinkema recuse herself and
this court immediately puts a Special Grand Jury into place to look into the criminal
actions of this court house. That Plaintiff from the beginning asked for a Judge that would not
carry the prejudice into this for Plaintiff being Catholic, not of a perceived social hierarchy as
the appearance of the Old Boys Network Black Balling Plaintiff as in the illegally jailing and
torturing of Plaintiff. A Judge that would be fair, have Jurisdiction where in keeping the
Integrity of the Court, where the United States of America Constitution was respected and
followed. Instead Judge Brinkema has throughout this case ruled from her Chambers and not
her Bench denying Plaintiff to her day in court, all Human Rights and her God given born rights
as an American Citizen. That the rulings have as stated in past filings been Bias with
1

Favoritism and Cronyism not even the enforcement of the rules and the laws of the Courts, the
Supreme Courts of America on the Defendants who are lawyers laughing all the way to the
bank.
Plaintiff has been discriminated against for being black balled by the Old Boys Network /
Judicial Community due to her x-husband being the son of the late Judge Albert Grenadier
whom was the Husband to Divorce Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman (and now
widow to Judge Grenadiers 1st cousin founding Law Partner to international, Washington DC
law firm KellerHeckman Jerome Jerry Heckman) intervened into Plaintiffs 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 is obvious by the Orders by Judge
Brinkema. The Breach of Contract by the Federal Judicial System in Virginia by ignoring the
right for services that Plaintiff has been denied. The actions will be proven factually by Orders,
Letters, Documents filed in the court and other. That Constitutional Right of Due Process has
been denied time and time again.
Plaintiffs Bill of Rights the Four Basic freedoms have been and are being violated by Judge
Brinkema and this court - The Four Freedoms 1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of worship

3. Freedom from want

4. Freedom from fear

The appearance of Judge Brinkema ignoring the Judicial Cannons is obvious to a layman should
not be ignored, her acts and actions have been by all appearance with knowledgeable intend to
further harm Plaintiff for her Judicial, Government and Elected FRIENDS. That the Plaintiff
in this matter because of the Judges apparent personal relationships between Defendant and the
Judge et al asked for a Judge from outside the area. All Orders by Judge Brinkema in this case
are Void due her lack of Jurisdiction.. 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. Further it is the obligation of every Judge to honor,
2

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. State court and 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)
The court erred when it allowed Defendants attorneys to ignore filling dates of opposition.
Defendants are attorneys officers of the court have been allowed to ignore the law and rules of
the Supreme Court of the United States of America 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)
The orders to date are not rational nor would such Orders be allowed if Plaintiff was an
attorney or had an attorney. Further, Plaintiff is already before the court on an unequal
footing with Plaintiffs 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 its statutory authority.
Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)
The appearance of Judge Brinkema being held to a different standard by the Judiciary with her
husband working with the Judicial Conference of the United States. With the fact that Plaintiff
was jailed to silence her prior to the election so Senator Mark Warner could be re-elected
without question to his and others in the Democratic Governors office et al using a Federal
Judgeship to keep a Representative in Virginia so the Democrats could dominate is very well
documented by the press. The disingenuous behavior that goes into a Judgeships in Virginia
needs to be evaluated. That the following is just two of Judge Brinkemas disclosure of her

Financials for 2003 and 2012 with little to no difference to them:

As you can see 2003 is hand written by all appearance by Judge Brinkema so it can be
assumed she knew what her investments were and had an obligation to disclose these
investments. Had an obligation to recuse herself from any case such as Lee Farkas et al,
Shapiro & Burson vs Westport Insurance Co.(1:12 cv 70 LMB/JFA) and Plaintiffs case.

That Judge Brinkemas investments have not varied, and the appearance is she continues from 2003 to
submit her Financial Disclosures without the assistance of an accountant.
Find attached googled:
Exhibit 1 : IRA- Keogh Merrill Lynch Blackrock Basic Mortgage Back Securities
Exhibit 2 : IRA-American Century Fund, Ultra Mutual Find and Schwab MMF Mortgage Back
Securities
Exhibit 3 : IRA- Sun Trust Bank Orlando Fl Cert. of Deposit Mortgage Back Securities
Exhibit 4 : U.S. Savings Bonds Series EE Mortgage Back Securities
All four investments the appearance is the Companys depend on Mortgage Back Securities even to
a lay man the conflict is apparent. The appointment of income / interest on these products can be
directly or indirectly tied to Mortgage Back Securities. That the appearance is Mortgage Crisis
affected Judge Brinkema and she brings to the bench a pre-disposed opinion would only be human.
That on the other hand if Judge Brinkemas investments changed often, if she had an accountant that
did her financials, if she had 28 or more investments and only 1 or 2 were in conflict you could
maybe see where the error could arise. But, Judge Brinkema only has 5 investments and the
appearance is she does her own filings and 4 out of 5 are related to Mortgage Back Securities or the
Mortgage Crisis which leaves no room for error that this was done with knowledge and intend to harm
those fighting for their lives in her courtroom with the appearance of Judge Brinkema bringing a
grudge to the bench. Losing Jurisdiction and voiding all orders.

Plaintiff has pointed out several times in filings that the Defendants have dirty hands. That the many
news articles show the Banks Fines of over $150 Billion paid as tallied by the Financial Times so that
the Executives did not go to jail. That these SECRET AGREEMENTS done by the Department of
Justice - Attorney General Holder by his prior law firm were to prevent the Hierarchy of the Banks
from being held accountable and possible jail time. Yet Judge Brinkema sent Lee Farkas et al to jail
and Mr. Farkas for 30 years. That even to Plaintiff a layman who has been harmed by the Banks sees
that as being overly harsh and as a Personal Vindictive Sentence then one of keeping with the United
States Attorney General Holder. 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
5

re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) No judge should ever rule by Favoritism and Cronyism for
the sake of Personal Retaliation and Retribution. 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 Judges, lawyers, elected officials and government employees
have decided you are not a part of their race or social hierarchy. 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.

The Question then becomes who does a Federal Judge owe for their appointment - The
answer is as follows:
Supreme Court justices and court of appeals and district judges are appointed to office by the President of the
United States, with the approval of the U.S. Senate. Presidents most often appoint judges who are members, or
at least generally supportive, of their political party, ( Judge Brinkma was appointed by President Bill
Clinton a Democrat ) but that doesnt mean that judges are given appointments solely for partisan reasons.
The professional qualifications of prospective federal judges are closely evaluated by the Department of
Justice, which consults with others, such as lawyers who can evaluate the prospects abilities. The Senate
Judiciary Committee undertakes a separate examination of the nominees. Magistrate judges and bankruptcy
judges are not appointed by the President or subject to Congresss approval. The court of appeals in each
circuit appoints bankruptcy judges for fourteen-year terms. District courts appoint magistrate judges for eightyear terms.
Here are some frequently asked questions regarding federal judges: You can find the answers and
confirm the information at:
http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe!openform&nav=menu1&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/1
83
What is an Article III judge?
Are there judges in the federal courts other than Article III judges?
How many federal judges are there?
]
What are the qualifications for becoming a federal judge?
Although there are almost no formal qualifications for federal judges, there are some strong informal ones. For example, while
magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges are required by statute to be lawyers, there is no statutory requirement that district judges,
circuit judges, or Supreme Court justices be lawyers. But it would be unheard-of for a president to nominate someone who is not a
lawyer. Before their appointment, most judges were private attorneys, but many were judges in state courts or other federal courts.
Some were government attorneys and a few were law professors.

Can a federal judge be fired?

Justices and judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution (Supreme Court justices, appellate and district court judges, and
Court of International Trade judges) serve "during good behavior." That means they may keep their jobs unless Congress decides
to remove them through a lengthy process called impeachment and conviction. Congress has found it necessary to use this
process only a few times in the history of our country. From a practical standpoint, almost all of these judges hold office for as long as

they wish. Article III also prohibits lowering the salaries of federal judges "during their continuance in office." Bankruptcy judges, in
contrast, may be removed from office by circuit judicial councils, and magistrate judges may be removed by the district judges of the
magistrate judge's circuit. Bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges dont have the same protections (lifetime appointment and no
reduction in salary) as judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution.

Why are some federal judges protected from losing their jobs and having their pay cut?
Federal judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution are guaranteed what amounts to life tenure and unreduced salary so that
they wont be afraid to make an unpopular decision.

For judges who are appointed for life,

what safeguards ensure that they remain fair & impartial?
Judges must follow the ethical standards set out in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which
contains guidelines to make sure a judge does not preside over a case in which he or she has any reason to favor
one side over the other. For example, a JUDGE MUST WITHDRAW or RECUSE himself or herself from
any case in which a close relative is a party, or in which he or she has any financial interest,
however remote. Judges are required to file a financial disclosure form annually, so that all their stock
holdings, board memberships, and other financial interests are on public record. They must be careful not to
do anything that might cause people to think they would favor one side in a case over another. For this
reason, they cant give speeches urging voters to pick one candidate over another for public office or ask people
to contribute money to civic organizations. Judges without life tenure are also subject to the Code of Conduct
for United States Judges.
When do judges retire?
Most federal judges retire from full-time service at around sixty-five or seventy years of age and become senior judges. Et al

How are cases assigned to judges?

Each court with more than one judge must determine a procedure for assigning cases to judges. Most district and bankruptcy courts
use random assignment, which helps to ensure a fair distribution of cases and also prevents "judge shopping," or parties attempts to
have their cases heard by the judge who they believe will act most favorably. Other courts assign cases by rotation, subject matter, or
geographic division of the court. In courts of appeals, cases are usually assigned by random means to three-judge panels.

THAT THE APPERANCE IS Judge Brinkema was appointed by a Democratic President and
Plaintiff was jailed and tortured 22 Days / 14 days in Solitaire Confinement till 5 pm on Election day so
Democrat Senator Mark Warner could be re-elected and the cover up of criminal actions of Jewish
Democrat Divorce Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman part of the Old boys Network
who owes Plaintiff $20 Million if not more in Money and Real Estate in a scheme to defraud.
That Divorce Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman with the help of many, and by
appearance of Judge Binkemas colleges has tortured Plaintiff Charging her with Extortion yet
Plaintiff was cleared of all charges. That all acts and actions against Plaintiff have been by the Old
Boys Network, Judges and Lawyers with knowledgably willful acts that were and are malicious,
violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless.
7

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. With the involvement of Divorce Lawyer Ilona having this e-mail sent along
with others including her attorney Ben DiMuro of DiMuro Ginsberg calling the Pope a Wonker and a
web site jwgrenadierisalair.blogspot.com calling Plaintiff the Anti-Crist, threatening thousands to
come to her home, calling her a homosexual et al: (Leah Lax Miller aka Loretta Miller aka Muggy Cats
writer of this e-mail is a Presidential Candidate for 2016)

From: LeahLax1234@aol.com <LeahLax1234@aol.com>

Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:05

PM

To: jwgrenadier@gmail.com

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! -

That Judge Brinkema to ignore the Fraud to financially help the Defendants her friends et al shows the
dysfunction, disingenuous behavior of this court house. Judge Brinkema with her Orders shows her
discrimination to Pro se Plaintiff the law is clear 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
8

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), affd, 742
F .2d 1448 (4th Cir. 1984) "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)).
Judge Brinkemas acts are, were and still are all willful acts that were malicious, violent,
oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless to intimidate and bully Plaintiff. Judge Brinkema
stating no claim in the Amended Complaint shows she either did not read it or that she ignored
the Facts of Fraud as further law shows:
(1) Fraud / Negligent Misrepresentation
Generally speaking, the elements of fraud are: (1) misrepresentation (false representation,
concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce
reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damages. Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631,
638, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377 (1996).
The elements of negligent misrepresentation are similar to intentional fraud except for knowledge
that the representation is false. Charnay v. Cobert, 145 Cal. App. 4th 170, 184-85, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d
471, 482 (2006). In a claim for negligent misrepresentation, the elements are: (1) the
misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact; (2) without reasonable ground for believing it to
be true; (3) with intent to induce anothers reliance on the fact misrepresented; (4) justifiable
reliance on the misrepresentation; and (5) resulting damages. Id.; see also Alliance Mortgage Co. v.
Rothwell, 10 Cal. 4th 1226, 1239, fn. 4, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (1995) (negligent misrepresentation is
a species of the tort of deceit and like fraud, requires a misrepresentation, justifiable reliance, and
damages).
(2) Fraudulent Inducement
This is a claim which is like a hybrid claim of breach of contract and tort. The essence of the claim is
that the defendant fraudulently induced a party to enter into a contract.
This cause of action generally requires knowing and intentional false statements of material fact (a
material factual omission may not be sufficient but should be explored) which reasonably induce a

homeowner to rely on the statements, and which false statements were relied upon to their
detriment.
Where this action lies, the Courts may allow specific performance of the contract as a
remedy and where fraud is clearly shown, punitive damages may be available.
(3) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and
its enforcement. Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc., 2 Cal.4th 342, 371, 6
Cal.Rptr.2d 467, 826 P.2d 710 (1992) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts 205). The
covenant of good faith finds particular application in situations where one party is invested with a
discretionary power affecting the rights of another. Such power must be exercised in good faith.
See Marsu, B.V. v. Walt Disney Co.,185 F.3d 932, C.A.9 (Cal.),1999.
The Cause of action for tortious breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing exists if
special relationship between parties is characterized by elements of public interest, adhesion, and
fiduciary responsibility. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 261 Cal.Rptr.
857
The duty of good faith and fair dealing arises from every contract as an implied covenant generating
both a contractual obligation and a duty in tort. Hess v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., 235
Cal.Rptr. 715. The Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is an equitable doctrine which may
validate otherwise unenforceable agreements. It is a doctrine of equity that the courts may use to
achieve a just result when a contract (ex. The loan modification trial plan agreement) is unclear
regarding a partys obligations and the doctrine can then allow the court to enforce what might
otherwise be deemed an unenforceable agreement.
The implied promise requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right
of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., supra, 24
Cal.3d at p. 818, 169 Cal.Rptr. 691, 620 P.2d 141.
A breach of a specific provision of the contract is not a necessary prerequisite to a breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal.,
Inc., 2 Cal.4th 342, 371, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 467, 826 P.2d 710 (1992) [T]he covenant is implied to
prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which (while not technically transgressing the
express covenant) frustrates the other partys rights of the benefits of the contract. See Los Angeles
Equestrian Ctr., Inc. v. City of Lose Angeles, 17 Cal.App.4 , 434, 447, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 (1993).
th

As a general principle, there can be no breach of the implied promise or covenant of good faith and
fair dealing where the contract expressly permits the actions being challenged, and the defendant
acts in accordance with the express terms of the contract. See Clark v. Americas Favorite Chicken
Co., 110 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1997) (applying Louisiana law) Forgery, Perjury by BWW Law Group
and Howard Bierman was a breach
This is so even where the contractual provision at issue is one that purports to grant to the defendant
absolute discretion to take certain actions or engage in certain conduct under the contract; such a
provision, stated simply, permits the defendant substantial latitude, and as long as the discretion is
exercised as permitted under the contract, and without evident bad faith motive or malice, its
exercise cannot be a breach of the more general implied promise of good faith and fair dealing.
See Clark v. Americas Favorite Chicken Co., 110 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1997).
Yet, even if the Defendant was given absolute discretion, it must exercise that discretion in good
faith. See Travellers Intern., A.G. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 41 F.3d 1570 (2d Cir. 1994) . Thus, a
party who evades the spirit of the contract, willfully renders imperfect performance, or interferes
with performance by the other party, may be liable for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
10

and fair dealing. See Paul v. Howard University, 754 A.2d 297, 145 Ed. Law Rep. 702 (D.C. 2000).
There was no good faith in the actions of the Defendants.
Some courts have focused on the reasonable expectations of the parties, (See Savers Federal Sav.
and Loan Assn v. Home Federal Sav. and Loan Assn, 721 F. Supp. 940, 945 (W.D. Tenn. 1989)while
others have focused on whether the action taken by the breaching party was arbitrary and
capricious. See Coles Dept. Store v. First Bank (N.A.)Billings, 240 Mont. 226, 783 P.2d 932, 936, 11
U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1074 (1989).
In determining whether a party has breached the obligation or covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, a court must examine not only the express language of the parties contract, but also any
course of performance or course of dealing that may exist between the parties. See Sanpete Water
Conservancy Dist. v. Carbon Water Conservancy Dist., 226 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2000) (applying
Utah law). Note: The court may be unwilling to imply any duty that the parties could not reasonably
expect from the terms of their contract). Hejmadi v. Amfac, Inc., 202 Cal. App. 3d 525, 547-549,
249 Cal. Rptr. 5, (1st Dist. 1988).
Generally speaking, a Breach of the covenant is a breach of contract. Tort recovery for breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing is available only in limited circumstances, generally involving
a special relationship between the contracting parties, such as the relationship between an insured
and its insurer.
Potential Damages: In general, contract damages are available (not including pain and suffering or
emotional damages) but the benefit of the bargain damages (consequential damages and perhaps
specific performance of the contract forcing the other party to provide the loan modification as
agreed in the trial plan modification offer). See Pasadena Live, LLC v. City of Pasadena, 114 Cal. App.
4th 1089, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 233 (2d Dist. 2004), rehg denied, (Feb. 4, 2004).
(4) Violation of California Civil Code Section 17200
Californias unfair competition law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.) defines
unfair competition to mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice. See Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939, 949, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 296 (2002). By defining
unfair competition to include any unlawful business act or practice, the UCL permits violations
of other laws to be treated as unfair competition that is independently actionable. In essence, an
action based on the UCL to redress an unlawful business practice borrows violations from other
laws and treats these violations, when committed pursuant to business activity, as unlawful practices
independently actionable under Section 17200 and subject to the distinct remedies provided there
under. See Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 17 Cal. 4th 553, 566-67, 71 Cal. Rptr.
2d 731 (1998).
There is no single definition for the phrase unfair business practices. It is an evolving concept
reflecting the ingenuity of unscrupulous business persons in concocting new schemes to
gain advantage at someone elses expense. The existence of an unfair business practice is a
question of fact determined in light of all the circumstances surrounding a case. See People ex rel.
Bill Lockyer v. Fremont Life Ins. Co., 104 Cal.App.4th 508, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 463, Cal.App. 2
Dist.,2002.
Sperry & Hutchinson, supra, 405 U.S. 233, 92 S.Ct. 898, 31 L.Ed.2d 170, describes the test for
fairness as one developed by the Federal Trade Commission to determine whether a practice that is
neither in violation of the antitrust laws nor deceptive is nonetheless unfair. The test as stated by
the court is as follows: (1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously
considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the
common law, or otherwise-whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of
some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is

11

immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury

to consumers (or competitors or other businessmen).
It is not necessary that all three components of this standard be satisfied; a practice may be unfair
because of the degree to which it meets one of these criteria, or because to a lesser extent it meets
all three. Expert testimony may be used to prove that business conduct is unfair. The court must
determine on a case-by-case basis whether the alleged conduct is unethical, oppressive, or
unscrupulous, or whether it was an appropriate exercise of good business judgment. This is
a balancing test, whereby the fact finder weighs the utility of the offending partys conduct against
the gravity of harm to the injured party or the public at large.
(5) Violation of California Consumer Legal remedies Act (Cal Civ. Code Section 1770 et
seq.)
Californias Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) establishes a nonexclusive statutory remedy
for unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by
any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the SALE OR LEASE OF
GOODS OR SERVICES to any consumer. SeeGonzalez v. Proctor and Gamble Co., S.D.Cal.2007,
247 F.R.D. 616.
Purpose of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) is to attempt to alleviate social and
economic problems stemming from deceptive business practices. SeeAmerica Online, Inc. v.
Superior Court (App. 1 Dist. 2001) 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 699.
I. Loan transactions are goods or services under the Act.
California Civil Code section 1754 provides that the CLRA shall not apply to any transaction which
provides for the construction, sale, or construction and sale of an entire residence or for the sale of
a lot or parcel of real property, including any site preparation incidental to such sale. However, this
provision bars application of the CLRA only to transactions for the sale or construction of real
property; it does not also exclude financial services related to such transactions.
Cases in support of this proposition include:
1. Jefferson v. Chase Home Finance LLC, No. C06-6510, 2007 WL 1302984 (N.D.Cal. May 3,
2007) (concluding that the loan transactions between a mortgage finance company and the plaintiff
involved more than the provision of a loan; they also include the financial services of managing the
loan.)
2. Knox v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., No. C05-00240, 2005 WL 1910927 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 10,
2005) (finding that, in the context of predatory lending allegations and after a review of the case
law, California courts generally find financial transactions to be subject to the CLRA.);
3. In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co., No 05-CV-7097, 2007 WL 1202544, (N.D.Ill. Apr. 23,
2007) (stating, in dicta, that it is not inconceivable that Plaintiffs could prove the existence of
tangential services associated with their residential mortgages and establish that these transactions
were covered by the CLRA.).
1. In an unreported decision (Jefferson v. Chase Home Finance, LLC 2007 WL 1302984, N.D.Cal.,
2007.) the Court stated: the arranging of the loan, including but not limited to its origination,
processing, documentation, wire-transmittal and underwriting constitutes services within the
meaning of subsection(b) of 1761 of the CLRAPlaintiffs did not seek just a loan; they sought
defendants services in developing an acceptable refinancing plan by which they could remain in
possession of their home. Thus, unlike the Berry case cited abovethe present case involves more
than the mere extension of a credit line. Instead, the circumstances here deal not just with the
mortgage loan itself, but also with the services involved in developing, securing and maintaining
plaintiffs loan..in fact, in an effort to create an appropriate refinancing package, plaintiffs met with

12

defendants agent three times before finally agreeing on a payment plan that plaintiffs and
defendants found acceptable.
II. Prohibited Acts
Section 1770 prohibits, (among other things), the following:
Knowingly misrepresenting the character, uses and benefits of its products and services; Knowingly
misrepresenting the standard and quality of products and services; Advertising goods or services
with intent not to sell them as advertised; Misrepresenting that the consumer will receive..an
economic benefit if the earning of the benefit is contingent on an event to occur subsequent to the
consummation of the transaction and, inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract (the
Court will look to California Civil Code section 1670.5 in making the unconscionability determination).
CASES ILLUMINATING THE UNCONSCIONABILITY PRINCIPLE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
Civil Code section 1670.5 follows the law developed primarily in the sale of goods, governed by the
Uniform Commercial Code, in enabling courts to grant relief from unconscionable contracts or
clauses. The principle is one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise. Whether a
contract is unconscionable or not is a question of law for the Court. Shadoan v. World Savings & Loan
Assn., 219 Cal.App.3d 97, 268 Cal.Rptr. 207 (1990).
As stated by the court in the seminal case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture
Company (D.C.Cir.1965) 350 F.2d 445, 449, Unconscionability has generally been recognized to
include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with
contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.
Absence of meaningful choice occurs when a party to a bargain has little choice but to accept the
terms stated by the other party. Hidden Terms in an agreement may qualify to show absence of
meaningful terms. See A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486 (1982).
A contract may be procedurally unconscionable under California law when the party with
substantially greater bargaining power presents a take-it-or-leave it contract to a
customer, even if the customer has a meaningful choice as to service providers. Shroyer v.
New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., C.A.9 (Cal.)2007, 498 F.3d 976.
Discussion: California and Arizona homeowners (greater phoenix area) who are lead to believe that
they qualify for a loan modification given the representations made by and concerning the trial plan
modification program, may have a claim to assert for damages. It is not certain you can prove that
the lenders loan modification services are covered by the act, but it does appear to be a claim worth
investigating at any rate.
III. DAMAGES AVAILABLE
(A) Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or employment by any person of
a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful by Section 1770 may bring an action against that
person to recover or obtain any of the following:
1. Actual damages, but in no case shall the total award of damages in a class action be less than
one thousand dollars ($1,000 minimum).
1. An order enjoining the methods, acts, or practices.
1. Restitution of property.
2. Punitive damages.
1. Any other relief that the court deems proper.
(B) Any consumer who is a senior citizen or a disabled person, as defined in subdivisions (f) and
13

(g) of Section 1761, as part of an action under subdivision (a), may seek and be awarded, in addition
to the remedies specified therein, up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) where the trier of fact does all
of the following:
(C) Finds that the consumer has suffered substantial physical, emotional, or economic
damage resulting from the defendants conduct.

The above is just part of the reason the Claims Judge Brinkema says Do Not Exist DO EXSIST.
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. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200,
216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5
L.Ed 257 (1821)
That the Knowledgeable, willful malicious acts and actions of the Defendants and Judge are and should
be considered Fraud on the Court. Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a
proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763
F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), 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
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
14

process of law" ( 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal
government.
The Basic Liberty of Due Process has been violated. The basic liberty that our Flag stands for and
here is where the standard of Liberty is set for the rest of the World. It is under the Oath that each
Judge has taken that this heavy burden lies on your shoulders to protect the Rights of each and every
American Citizen. That the Appearance of Justice is just as important as Justice itself.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Prays:
1. This Court immediately Disqualifies / Recuses Judge Leonie Brinkema for personal / financial
jurisdiction conflict.
2. That immediately the Motion for Default is Signed and Ordered in favor of Plaintiff. As the
Plaintiff has shown With respect to the conduct that constitutes fraud, Delaware's high court
held that these showings were required: Plaintiff showed (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 has
proven (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. That a Special Grand Jury should be immediately put into action to investigate the appearance of
the criminal actions in this Court house and the Judiciary in Virginia as requested in a separate
Motion. The problem arises because of the peculiar nature and lack of federal and state
oversight. The appearance is the Judiciary, the Government and Elected Officials in policing
themselves has given them virtually unlimited authority, discretion, and few reviewable
questions of law for appeal. There is little to no federal oversight through civil rights actions.
15

Many federal courts have abstained from accepting even when they assert violations of federal
civil rights laws, and state actors regularly assert immunities under the Eleventh Amendment or
personal immunities for judicial or quasi-judicial activities. That the entire industry has set its
own best practices to incorporate fraud and extortion as relevant standard of care. The
industry regards itself as untouchable by its own vulnerable client base.
The result of this unusual absence of checks and balances has become a perfect storm of unchecked
power, absence of meaningful oversight, and financially-motivated professionals who operate the
systemlawyers, city/ county-level bureaucrats, none of whom are open to input from litigants.
Litigants encounter the system as a revolving door process with short term goals. There is no longer
term litigant-side input to protect the legal and ethical integrity of the processes which deployed and
policed by the system operators themselves. The resulting exploitation ruins the American Citizen and
there families while enriching attorneys, governments, elected officials and judges who administer the
processes they, and they alone, created.

Date: June 23, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
/S/_____________________________
Janice Wolk Grenadier
15 West Spring Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22301
Telephone (202) 368-7178
Email jwgrenadier@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 23th day of June, 2015, I served a true and correct copy through e-mail / Hand Delivery or the foregoing
by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following parties:
Robert R. Michael (VSB #74148)
BWW Law Group, LLC
8100 Three Chopt Rd., Suite 240
Richmond, VA 23229
Counsel for Defendant Equity Trustees, LLC, BWW Law
Group et al

Nathaniel Patrick Lee, Esq.

McGuireWoods, LLP
1750 Tysons Blvd Suite 1800
McLean, VA 22102-4215
June 23, 2015

Syed Mohsin Reza, Esq.

Mary Catherine Zinsner Esq.
Troutman Sanders, LLP
1850 Towers Crescent Plaza Suite 500
Tysons Corner, VA 22182
Counsel for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC

Janice Wolk Grenadier

ProSe

16