Around September of 2008 Janice Wolk Grenadier made her 1st Judicial Complaint to the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Committee aka JIRC.
Donald Curry the person in charge of the JIRC informed Janice about the Judge she complain she should not bother "He is my friend, I will not take a complaint against him" Janice filed the complaint and a letter stating it would not be investigated came back to her the next day.
Janice found through investigation that Judge Donald Kent is by all appearance the head of the Old Boys Network and rules on all.
You can read Janice's story at www.valaw2010.blogspot.com. Janice was illegally jailed October 14, 2014 for Cash for Lawyers no different than Cash for Kids where the Judges went to jail.
On January 13, 2016 Wednesday around 4.30 pm (complaints dated Jan 11, 2016) Janice had delivered complaints with this letter to the JIRC:
The State of Virginia has allocated $602,000 to support this Corrrpt Commission - That a few years ago as the letter states Janice voluntiered to become a member - Janice was dubbed a "PAIN IN THE ASS" and Janice's letter , phone calls and e-mails were ignored - The following shows that
1. The Budget amount,
2. The Letter from Janice to JIRC
3. The Detailed Information from the JIRC to the Legislature from 1999 - 2015 that shows they DO NOT INVESTIGATE any Virginia Citizens Complaints:
If you have made it to here - you can see the evidence is clear the $602,000. SCAM to EMPOWER JUDGES in the State of Virginia to ignore the LAW. The Judges in PA went to jail for CASH for KIDS - JUDGE JAMES CLARK jailed JANICE WOLK GRENADIER CASH FOR LAWYERS
Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman
DiMuroGinsberg for Ben DiMuro, Judge John Tran, Hillary Collyer, Andrea Mosley
Michael Weiser Esq
Troutman Sanders aka Mays & Valentine
Keller Heckman
You will also want to read:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/299242956/State-s-Best-Kept-
Secret-is-Agency-That-Judges-the-Judges
THE VIRGINIAN PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 22, 1996 TAG: 9609230248
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARK DAVIS
LENGTH: 217 lines
STATE'S BEST KEPT SECRET IS AGENCY THAT JUDGE THE JUDGES
The complaint was filed in secret. The public was not told that a Norfolk judge may have acted improperly.
A government agency investigated the judge in secret. There was no public record.
A misconduct hearing was called in secret. The location was kept quiet. The agency would not confirm the judge's name or even that it was meeting.
Witnesses against the judge were called in secret. Subpoenas were not filed in open court, as they are in criminal cases. The witnesses' testimony may never be known. They were urged not to talk after the hearing.
A newspaper reporter who showed up was asked the leave the building, a Holiday Inn. The reporter stayed out in the hallway.
And in the end, Judge Luther C. Edmonds of Norfolk Circuit Court resigned under pressure.
That was nearly two weeks ago, and still nothing is known officially about the case, and probably nothing ever will be. Edmonds will go back to his private law practice in Virginia Beach and he will be eligible for a judge's pension in a few years.
The exact charges against himremain sealed. The nature of his alleged misdeeds remain unknown. The name of whoever filed the complaint against him remains confidential. The testimony against him is secret.
The system worked exactly as it was intended: The public will never be told why a sitting judge left office.
Lawyers call it The Jerk that's JIRC, short for Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.
It is the most powerful and most secretive government body you've never heard of.
How secret is Virginia's judicial commission? Consider the scene Sept. 12 when the commission heard charges against Edmonds.
Nothing at the Holiday Inn Executive Center on Greenwich Road hinted at the serious proceedings inside. It was 8:30 a.m. and the hotel buzzed with activity.
Several meetings were going on at once. In Parlor E, Navy officers discussed rescue techniques. In Parlor B, blue collar workers from Georgia Pacific talked shop. Their doors were open.
Across the hall in Parlor C, the door was closed and locked. No one was admitted without permission. There was no sign on the door or on the hotel marquee to tell visitors who was meeting there. Inside, the seven commission members three judges, two lawyers and two private citizens met.
The hearing started, then stopped abruptly. JIRC's chief counsel emerged to confront a VirginianPilot
reporter waiting outside.
``I am asking you to leave the building,'' Reno S. Harp III told the reporter. ``I can't order you to leave, but I am asking you to leave the building. Your presence here is threatening the confidentiality of the witnesses who will testify.''
It is that secret.
For 25 years, the JIRC has been meting out justice behind closed doors. This is required by the state constitution, under the heading of
``Disabled and unfit judges.'' It says, ``Proceedings before the Commission shall be confidential.''
How confidential are they? So confidential that, until 1993, it was a crime for witnesses to publicly discuss their testimony.
So confidential that, until 1978, it was a crime for newspapers to report that an investigation existed.
Technically, the commission is not all powerful.
Technically, it answers to the state Supreme Court, which has the real power to remove
or censure judges. Technically, the commission merely makes recommendations, and technically the most serious cases become public when the charges and transcript move to the Supreme Court.
But that rarely happens.
In 25 years, only six judges statewide have been publicly punished. And only one case resulted in a judge's removal a Richmond judge who gave away confiscated guns and liquor.
More often, judges under investigation resign, like Edmonds, and their cases fade away.
Many lawyers and judges say it is the fairest system possible. They say privacy is needed to protect judges' reputations from unfair attacks and to protect witnesses who are afraid to come forward.
``I know there's some debate about whether the entire process should be open,'' says commission chairman Theodore J. Craddock, a Lynchburg lawyer. ``I personally feel the system should stay the way it is. I've seen it work and I feel it works best . . .
``Anybody can make an allegation. I think the reputation of a judge can be unfairly attacked.''
The system is so secret that Craddock says he cannot offer examples of cases in which confidentiality was needed.
Richmond lawyer James C. Roberts has represented several accused judges before the commission. He agrees on the need for secrecy. He says many complaints against judges are worthless and deserve to be kept quiet.
Besides, Roberts says, ``You're more apt to have people come forward and be honest and candid under those circumstances than if the process had been public.''
Harp, the commission's chief counsel for 25 years, refuses to get drawn into the debate. He says simply that confidentiality is required by the state constitution ``and I'm required to follow it.''
He calls the commission ``the personnel department of the judiciary,'' an agency that deals with problem employees like any other.
In an interview earlier this year in the Newport News Daily Press, Harp said he sometimes works in the background to get at the root causes of judges' problems medication, for example, or alcoholism, or even a hearing aid.
Sometimes the commission simply eases a judge into retirement, sometimes for medical reasons, sometimes as a quick remedy to charges of misconduct.
For example, Judge Stephen Comfort retired from Chesapeake General District Court in 1993, saying he had become bored with the job.
A few days later, a friend said Comfort was forced to quit by the judicial commission. The friend said Comfort was being investigated for improperly intervening with another judge in the friend's child visitation dispute.
As in the Edmonds case, neither the judge nor Harp could comment because the investigation was confidential.
Last week, Harp said other ``personnel departments'' don't have to deal with problem employees in public.
The system has its critics. Richmond lawyer David P. Baugh may be the most outspoken. In 1990, he attacked the commission's confidentiality with a federal lawsuit.
He complained that his First Amendment rights were being violated because he could not talk about a complaint he had filed against a judge.
And he won. A federal judge ruled that Virginia cannot stop witnesses and complainants from talking about their cases.
As a result, the General Assembly in 1993 revoked the law that made it a crime. But the legislature made no other changes, and the commission still urges witnesses to remain silent after they testify, even after hearings are over.
That infuriates Baugh.
``The JIRC is the ultimate star chamber,'' Baugh says. ``I have a hard time keeping secrets from the people. We're paying the tab for this guy (a judge). We don't know the allegations against him. We don't even know if the allegations ought to be crimes . . .
``If I make a complaint against you and it's a crime, it becomes public. If I make a complaint against a judge, that's different . . . I don't like this secrecy. Secrecy and democracy don't mix.''
Norfolk City Treasurer Joseph Fitzpatrick agrees.
In 1979, when Fitzpatrick was a state senator, he tried to change the rules. His anger was sparked by secret misconduct hearings against
Norfolk Judge Joseph Jordan of General District Court.
The investigation was no secret. Many lawyers in town talked openly about the case. It was debated endlessly in the press. Eventually, the
commission did certify public charges against Jordan to the Supreme Court, and Jordan was publicly censured.
Fitzpatrick testified for Jordan in secret. He was furious that Jordan had been ``tried in the press'' without a public hearing. In the legislature, he called for a constitutional amendment to open the system.
Fitzpatrick lost that fight, but his opinion hasn't changed.
``It occurred to me that judges were subject to being found guilty without anyone ever knowing what the charges were,'' Fitzpatrick said last week. ``The more these things go on, the more convinced I am that . . . the public should know what a judge is being charged with and should be able to be a part of any action taken against a judge, through the media.''
Even accused judges who want their hearings open cannot change the law.
In 1990, for example, Portsmouth Judge Archie Elliott Jr. of General District Court was accused of misconduct. Again, it was a poorly held secret. Lawyers, including Portsmouth's top prosecutor, talked openly about the case. Elliott asked for an open hearing. The commission said no.
The commission never revealed the outcome of the hearing. It became public only after Elliott told a church congregation three days later that the charges against him had been dismissed.
``There were so many rumors floating around about different allegations,'' Elliott's attorney, Kenneth R. Melvin, said at the time. ``We wanted the people to know that the charges were essentially procedural allegations.''
Is there another way?
Most states are not as secret as Virginia. All 50 keep initial investigations private. But after that, 32 states make cases public when charges are filed against a judge, according to the American Judicature Society in Chicago.
Among the less secretstates are neighbors North Carolina, Maryland, West Virginia and Tennessee.
Unlike Virginia, seven states and the District of Columbia also allow an accused judge to waive confidentiality.
Only 13 states have systems similar to Virginia's, and six are more secret, including neighboring Kentucky.
In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that newspapers and broadcasters in Virginia cannot be prosecuted for truthfully reporting on the
JIRC. The issue arose after The VirginianPilot
was convicted of a misdemeanor and fined $500 for reporting that a judge was under
investigation.
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: ``The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern.
The operation of the Virginia commission (JIRC), no less than the operation of the judicial system itself, is a matter of public interest.''
After the ruling, JIRC's chairman breathed a sigh of relief. At least, he said, the hearings themselves will remain closed. A ruling against JIRC's secret nature ``would have killed the commission,'' he said.
The American Bar Association has a different take.
In 1991, an ABA commission reported that the public is suspicious of lawyers who discipline themselves in secret. The report focused on lawyer disciplinary systems not judicial discipline systems but found that lawyers hold themselves to different standards than the general
public.
``The irony that lawyers are protected by secret proceedings while earning their livelihoods in an open system of justice is not lost on the public,'' the ABA commission wrote.
``The public will never accept the claim that lawyers must protect their reputations by gag rules and secret proceedings.'' ILLUSTRATION:
JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION
When Judge Luther C. Edmonds, left, resigned, the public never
knew why. The commission kept secret the charges against him. The
name of whoever filed the complaint against him, and the testimony,
remains unknown, as well.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
The Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission has seven
members three judges, two lawyers and two laymen. They are
appointed by the General Assembly to fouryear
terms. The members are:
Chairman Theodore J. Craddock, Lynchburg lawyer.
Vice Chairman Thomas E. Glascock, Hampton lawyer.
Judge James H. Flippen Jr., Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court
Robert J. Grey, Richmond, retired from A.H. Robbins
John S. Massad Sr., Richmond, real estate
Judge Paul F. Sheridan, Arlington Circuit Court
Judge Joseph S. Tate, Marion General District Court
KEYWORDS: JUDGES JIRC JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND
REVIEW COMMISSION
Virginia Tech University Libraries DLA Contact Us PDF Viewers
This w ork is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercialShare
Alike 3.0 United States License.
URL: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VAnew
s/VAPilot/
issues/1996/vp960922/09230248.
Donald Curry the person in charge of the JIRC informed Janice about the Judge she complain she should not bother "He is my friend, I will not take a complaint against him" Janice filed the complaint and a letter stating it would not be investigated came back to her the next day.
Janice found through investigation that Judge Donald Kent is by all appearance the head of the Old Boys Network and rules on all.
You can read Janice's story at www.valaw2010.blogspot.com. Janice was illegally jailed October 14, 2014 for Cash for Lawyers no different than Cash for Kids where the Judges went to jail.
On January 13, 2016 Wednesday around 4.30 pm (complaints dated Jan 11, 2016) Janice had delivered complaints with this letter to the JIRC:
Janice Wolk Grenadier
15 West Spring Street
Alexandria, VA 22301
202-368-7178
January 11, 2016
Katherine B. Burnett
Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission
100 North 9th Street #661
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Re:: The criminal enterprise of this Judicial Committee in direct conflict of the mandate and law. That since September of 2008 this commission has ignored all complaints against Circuit Court Judges by Janice Wolk Grenadier. The outcome was it empowered the Judges to Jail and Torture Janice for CASH for Lawyers from October 22, 2014 – November 12, 2014. The collusion of Judges between the State of Virginia Circuit Court, General Court, the USDC of DC and USDC of VA and the USDC of the 4the Circuit of Appeals, and the USDC of the District of Columbia Appeals this can no longer be ignored.
Dear Ms. Burnett,
This commission was created to protect the Virginia Citizens – American Citizens from an enterprise that polices itself. That the appearance is this commission is it is “Cherry Picked” to protect the Judges and not the American Citizens. That the acts and actions of this commission since September of 2008 when I called Mr. Donald Curry with my first complaint was “Don’t bother with a complaint he is my friend it will go nowhere” is exactly what this commission is – a group of Friends of the Old Boys Network and Judges to pretend and give the appearance of compliance.
When in 2012 I asked to be of service and serve on the Commission all letters and emails were ignored by the Judicial Committee because they knew I would hold the Judges accountable. It is the Judges whose job it is to make sure everyone in the room follows the law, follows the rules and the lawyers are held accountable. These Judges instead and it seems across America now look at who has the money, who has the power and that is how they rule. The documents, the acts and actions of the Judges show this.
You have by your personal acts and actions empowered the Judges in the State of Virginia with the support and help of the Old Boys Network, the Governor, the Attorney General and the Virginia Legislature to act lawlessly. Helping and supporting Judges who Cover Up the criminal acts of attorneys.
I have in the past complained against Judges Haddock, Kent, Kemler, Clark, Dawkins, Fortkort, Brown, McGrath, McCue all complaints were ignored, which according to the reports that you submit each year shows this is a pattern and practice of this commission. I have attached a chart from 1999 – 2015 the actions of this Commission which shows the lack of enforcement of the law allowing / empowering Judges to act lawlessly with Bias, Favoritism, Cronyism, Retaliation and Retribution with anyone who questions the integrity of the system.
That I have a different perspective then most as I was married to the son of a Judge and know of the inner workings of the Virginia et al Judiciary and the enterprise of it as a business no different than the Mafia – it is working under the law as a Rico and Racketeering type enterprise. Harming American Citizens every day.
The facts are clear and documented that Judge Donald Haddock in May of 2008 to Janice stated “You will never get a fair trial we LOVE ILONA” Judge Haddock than went on to chose Janice’s Judges in every hearing and every judge Janice has had including tampering with the Grand Jury. That Judge Donald Kent – Judge Haddock’s best friend has been a co-conspirer by all appearance since the start and went to the trouble that when Janice was to meet with her Senator in Virginia Patsy Ticer had Janice lied to and told that she was meeting with her assistant. The women Janice met with never worked with Patsy Ticer. The women stated after hearing Janice’s story “Do you know who I am” Janice “NO” The other women “ I am the x-wife of Donald Kent – Martha Kent”, “Me and My family can’t get a fair trial either” “ You can not win this, You are no longer one of them” Patsy Ticer went on recently to admit to Janice this scheme and to say “Well you can’t beat Ilona she has to much money and power” That may be this commissions America – but, that is not the Constitution and not the way the laws and the rules of the United States Supreme Court read.
You can have a winning case but, with a corrupt Judge you have nothing.
The following Cases are involved in this Complaint:
Court
|
Case No.
|
Judge
|
Case Description
|
City of Alexandria Circuit Court
|
99 - 1253
|
John Kloch
Nolan Dawkins
James Clark
|
Divorce – without a property settlement – real estate stolen from me due c. $20 Mill from Div Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman and David Grenadier – due to fraud, use of lawyers not licensed in VA
|
Virginia Court of Appeals
|
2141-13-4
|
Appealed re-opening to collect - David did not even have to respond the court did as it was told and ignored the law - Div Lawyer with Ben DiMuro intervened into the Divorce re-open
|
|
City of Alexandria Circuit Court
|
James Clark
|
Divorce to protect assets Lis Pendens
|
|
Prince William County Circuit Court
|
14 – 2185
14 – 2185 - 1
|
Mary Grace O’Brien
Carroll A. Weimer Jr.
|
Divorce to protect assets Lis Pendens
|
City of Alexandria Circuit Court
|
CH 010654
|
James Clark
John Kloch
Lisa Kemler
Donald Haddock
Nolan Dawkins
Thomas Fortkort
J. Howe Brown
James McGrath
|
Bellefonte Partnership - The number of Judges is that is how many it took for Judge Donald Haddock to pull in favors
|
Supreme Court of Virginia
|
110156
|
Case No. CH 010654
|
|
Supreme Court of Virginia
|
122204
|
Case No. CH 010654
|
|
City of Alexandria General District Court
|
Richard J. McCue
|
||
City of Alexandria Circuit Court
|
Donald Haddock
James Clark
Richard Bowen Potter
|
Grand Jury –
|
|
City of Alexandria Circuit Court
|
CL 15 - 00361
|
Judge James Clark
|
Case for Ilona Grenadier Heckman and David Grenadier to collect on the illegal legal fees their attorneys were awarded and who acted in collusion lying in court, lying in court documents, lying to the Supreme Court of Virginia
|
That Janice in all above cases has not had a Judge with Jurisdiction that the attached documents will show the criminal acts of Divorce lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman that these Judges are covering up for the “LOVE” Judge Donald Haddock expressed when he stated “You will never get a fair trial”
Janice would then get in 2012 till today a Judge in the City of Alexandria put their by Judge Haddock and his friends – Judge James Clark. On the Orders that Judge James Clark signed on December 23, 2015 he admitted to:
1. Tampering with evidence submitted into the record in October 2012
2. Denying Due Process
3. Inclusion with the hiring of Mark Stuart or as a friend to Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman to have Janice drugged and sexual inappropriate pictures taken, or to have her girls raped or to plant drugs on the girls or in the home. That he was aware by signing the Order that when the police where called that Randy Sengel had informed the police not to take any complaints from Janice
4. That he had jailed and had Janice tortured in jail to collect funds from Janice to line the pockets of lawyers Michael Weiser Esq, Ben DiMuro, Hillary Collyer, Andrea Mosley and now Judge John Tran. That he stated on Nov 22, 2015 to Janice’s opponents lawyer in court “I am so sorry I can not collect your legal fees – You will need to come back and get a judgment”
5. That Judge Clark colluded in the blog jwgrenadierisalair.blogspot.com by Loretta Lax Miller aka Muggy Cat and Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman with her lawyers
That the above is just a bit of what has been done to me from these Judges with the collusion of many
That the Judge and Lawyers all signed the Orders on December 23, 2015 admitting to the above with no opposition to what was written on the Orders. That this is not the first time the Orders stated the “TRUTH” by Janice and the Orders were signed by the above Judge and other Judges. That the record and the TRUTH was disclosed and the signature of the Judge’s, Lawyers and Janice tell the true story, of the criminal acts of the Lawyers and Judges. That all American Citizens going in to the courts across America need to understand the Judges are accustom to and rule on or by the way the they are told by a lawyer or someone of power who has a stake in the outcome.
That I am aware this committee can not change the out come but, what it can do is not allow it to happen to someone else It can hold these Judges accountable for their criminal acts and this is what this committee is suppose to do and has ignored these mandates by the law and the legislator of Virginia.
These Judge’s went to far in illegally Jailing me. This enterprise has acted in collusion and you have a supervisor type position to ensure that this does not happen, Yet you and Donald Curry have empowered these Judges to know and believe there is no consequences for this bad behavior. Just the opposite you support it, empower it and promote it within the Judiciary. The bigger the Favor the Judge does the higher in the ranks he will go, and no different than a street gang his protection by this commission.
I complain to this commission today against:
1. Judge James Clark
2. Judge Donald Haddock
3. Judge Nolan Dawkins
4. Judge Lisa Kemler
5. Judge Thomas Fortkort
6. Judge J. Howe Brown
7. Judge James McGrath
8. Judge Richard Potter
9. Judge Mary Grace O’Brien
10. Judge Carroll A. Weimer Jr.
11. Judge Richard J. McCue
12. Judge Donald Kent
13. Judge Cynthia Kinser
That since 2008 the above and others have acted in collusion in a Rico and Racketeering enterprise ignoring the following Judicial Cannons, State and Federal Laws:
Their are responsibility and consequences of a Judge who has grounds to recuse himself is expected to do so. If a judge does not know that grounds exist to recuse themselves the error is harmless. If a judge does not recuse themselves when they should have known to do so, they may be subject to sanctions, which vary by jurisdiction. Depending on the jurisdiction, if an appellate court finds a judgment to have been made when the judge in question should have been recused, it may set aside the judgment and return the case for retrial. In this case the Scheme of Fraud on the Court to work with the those not holding them to the law – ruling in their favor even with Civil Rights Violations shows a strong bias to harm and intimidate Pro Se Litigant Janice.
“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)”
Where an extrajudicial false accusation of a deeply personal and profession nature has been made by the Court against Pro se Janice prior to his ever ascending the bench, but manifests itself in his current hostile and antagonistic frame of mind in a matter over which he is currently presiding, Section 455 (a) of Title 28 mandates that the Court "shall disqualify himself" since his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Added to the clear language of Section 445, which requires disqualification where the court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, is the forceful holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 557 (1994), clearly requiring disqualification under the circumstances presented here: "Section 455(a) provides that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." For present purposes, it should suffice to say that Section 455 (a) is triggered by an attitude or state of mind so resistant to fair and dispassionate inquiry as to cause a party, the public, or a reviewing court to have reasonable grounds to question the neutral and objective character of a judge's rulings or finding" .
The Second Circuit and the Southern District have repeatedly invoked these objective standards in defining the basis for recusal. Gil Enterprises, Inc. v. Delvy, 79 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Occhipinti, 851 F. Supp. 523 (SDNY, 1993). As acknowledged in Grodin v. Random House, Inc., 61 F. 3d. 1045 at 1053, citing appropriate language in Liteky: "deep seated antagonism makes fair judgment impossible."
The basis for recusal here is premised on an extraordinary false accusation leveled against counsel while the judge was still in private practice. It was, and is, a personal attack that is extrajudicial. See U.S. v. Serrano, 607 F.2d 1145 (5th Cir. 1979) and U.S. v. Zagaire, 419 F. Supp. 494 (N. Dist. Cal. 1976), where specific note is taken that extrajudicial attacks of a personal nature are the strongest basis for granting relief.
Nor does it matter that the Court fails to recall the specifics of the event in question: "The goal of section 455(a) is to avoid even the appearance of partiality. If it would appear to a reasonable person that a judge has knowledge of facts that would give him an interest in the litigation then an appearance of partiality is created even though no actual partiality exists because the judge does not recall the facts, because the judge actually has no interest in the case or because the judge is pure in heart and incorruptible. The judge's forgetfulness, however, is not the sort of objectively ascertainable fact that can avoid the appearance of partiality." Lilyeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 871 (1988).
The plain language of 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2) is clear:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it.
In discussing the import of § 455(b), Chief Justice Rehnquist noted, in his dissent, in Lilyeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 871 (1988) that: "Subsection (b) of § 455 sets forth more particularized situations in which a judge must disqualify himself. Congress intended the provisions of § 455 (b) to remove any doubt about recusal in cases where a judge's interest is too closely connected with the litigation to allow his participation."
Where two separate factors involving a past association with a party and personal animus toward counsel combine to establish the personal bias and prejudice of the judge, as set forth in a timely and sufficient affidavit, the allegations must be accepted as true and the Court is required to recuse itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144."
The recusal motion has been filed "at the earliest possible moment after obtaining the facts demonstrating a basis for recusal." See U.S. v. Occhipinti, 851 F. Supp. 523, 567 (So. Dist., NY 1993). It sets forth the origins of the Court's bias: an extrajudicial episode and prior association. U.S. v. Zagaire, 419 F. Supp. 494 (No. Dist. Cal. 1976), and documents with particularity the manifestation of bias as reflected in the current proceeding.
As such, and for purposes of Section 144 of Title 28, the allegations of a certified affidavit must be accepted by the Court as true, and the Court must act in accordance with the mandate of § 144 and recuse itself. U.S. v. Sykes, 7 F. 3d 1331 (7th Cir. 1993).
That the evidence in the above cases filed shows the Fraud, Perjury, Forgery, Obstruction of Justice, intend to mentally harm with much suffering by Janice, Discrimination for Social Hierarchy and Religious beliefs, the collusion to silence Janice while illegally jailed, Fraud on the Court, Professional Code of Ethics Violations, support of hate crimes, intimidation, support of illegal jailing and torture of Janice to intimidate and silence, et al that all acts and actions have been knowledgeable willful acts that were and are ongoing malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless by the above Judges and Divorce Lawyer Ilona et al..
. That no Plaintiff or Defendant can win when a Judge is ruling in Retaliation, Retribution, Bias, Favoritism, Cronyism or for or with a financial conflict. The following are the conflicts that the above Judges have shown with the Judicial Canons: as has been shown in documents filed with this court.
1. The Judges have violated Canon 1 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia and United States of America in that they:
a. failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
b. failed to maintain and enforce standards of conduct for fellow judges, and officers of the court.
c. failed to observe minimal standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved.
d. failed to construe and apply the provisions of the Canons of Judicial Conduct to further their objectives.
e. reduced the public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges and the deference of the public to the judgments and rulings of courts and injured the system of government under law.
f. acted based on favor.
g. failed to comply with the law
h. failed to interpret and apply the laws that govern us.
i. failed to respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust.
j. failed to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system.
k. failed to be an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes.
l. failed to meet even minimal standards for ethical conduct of judges.
2. The Judges violated Canon 2 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct in that they failed to respect and comply with the law and failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
3. The Judges violated Canon 3, of the Canons of Judicial Conduct by failing to perform the duties of his judicial office impartially and diligently.
4. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(2) in that they failed to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.
5. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(4) in that they failed to hear any proceedings fairly and with patience, failed to dispose promptly of the business of the court and failed to be efficient and businesslike while being honest and deliberate.
6. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(5) in that they failed to perform judicial duties without Retaliation, Retribution, Favoritism, Cronyism bias or prejudice.
7. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(6) in that she failed to refrain in Orders from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon social hierarchy, to protect others. Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they failed to accord every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, the right to be heard according to law.
8. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they and there staff initiated, permitted, and/or considered ex parte communications, or considered other communications made to the judge outsider the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding on several occasions.
9. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that she failed to disclose to all parties all ex parte communications described in Sections 3B(7)(a) and 3B(7)(b) regarding a proceeding pending or impending before the judge.
10. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they independently investigated facts in a case outside the courtroom and considered evidence other than that presented in documents, and with the fact they did not allow my witness’s to take the stand.
11. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(7) in that they failed to insure that Section 3B(7) was not violated through law clerks or other personnel on the judge's staff. [If communication between the trial judge and the appellate court with respect to a proceeding is permitted, a copy of any written communication or the substance of any oral communication should be provided to all parties.]
12. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3B(8) in that they failed to dispose promptly of the business of the court. In a fair and unbias why following the law and rules of the Court.
13. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section B(9) in that she failed to abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court, and failed to direct similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to his direction and control.
14. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(1) in that they failed to diligently discharge the judge's administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice and maintain professional competence in judicial administration,
15. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(2) in that they failed to require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge and to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties.
16. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(3) in that as a they Judge failed to take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before the court.in a professional and fair way.
17. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3C(4) in:
a. that they failed to exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit;
b. that they engaged in Retaliation, Retribution, Bias, and showed favoritism;
18. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3D(1) in that they received reliable information indicating a substantial likelihood that other Judges, and Lawyers hat acted criminally, had conflicts and had committed violations of these Canons or other laws and they did not take appropriate action.
19. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3D(1) in that they had knowledge that Judge and lawyers had committed violations of these Canons that raises a substantial question as to their fitness for office and they did not inform the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission or other authorities as they are required to do.
20. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section 3D(2) in that they received reliable information indicating a substantial likelihood that the attorney’s in this case and others had committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and they did not take appropriate action.
21. The Judges violated Canon 3, Section D(2) in that had knowledge that Attorney Ilona Grenadier Heckmna and others has committed violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility that raised a substantial question as to his trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer and they did not inform the Virginia State Bar.
22. That to date Janice has personally provided several statement’s and Motions to Judge outlining much of the above and offering to provide additional information.
23. The above Judges have engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice" (Va. Const. art. VI, § 10; Code of Virginia § 17.1-906) and there performance as a Judge needs investigating and a Special Grand Jury should be empowered for a fair and unbias investigation into this court and the actions of the above Judges..
The Criminal Misconduct consists of the following:
Criminal Misconduct and
Misconduct While in Office
|
Facts and Laws
|
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
|
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both, or may be sentenced to death.
|
Racketeering 18 USC § 1961
|
|
Extortion 18 USC § 1951, 18 USC § 1963, Va Code 18.2-470
VA Code §18.2-439 Acceptance of bribe by officer or candidate
|
That the appearance to is that the Judges were and are in the loop of the collusion of having Janice jailed and tortured for being poor, Catholic and to Cover up the criminal acts. At all times threatening incarceration by other Judges if Janice did not pay. Collusion with others in the intimidation in hopes of Janice being Murdered or committing suicide the acts and actions show a pattern and practice / Collusion of Virginia Circuit Court Judges, USDC Federal Court and Appeals Court in Virginia and the District of Columbia That when DiMuroGinsberg, Grenadier Anderson Starace Duffett & Kieser donated substantially to the Portrait of Judge Donald Haddock was nothing more than a THANK YOU – BRIBARY for always having their back.
|
Obstruction of Justice 18 USC § 1503(a) , § 1505, § 1506, § 1510, § 1511, § 1512, § 1513, § 1514, § 1514(A), § 1519 VA Code § 18.2-409 Resisting or obstruction execution of legal process VA Code 18.2
|
Making judicial decisions outside of the courtroom and relying on extrajudicial, ex parte information to issue substantive decisions. Conducting ex parte discussions with opposition and government agencies. Not requiring opposition to prove their case but ruling for them anyway. Denying procedural due process, denying any and all witness’s or information that showed the criminal activity of Ilona Grenadier Heckman/ David Grenadier/Erika Lewis and their lawyers. Issuing baseless, noncompliant orders and seeking or trying to intimidate with the possibility of money to opponents lawyers.
|
Mail Fraud 18 USC § 1341
|
Causing the issuance of coercive letters demanding payment of baseless legal fees in support and making threats if I do not pay, then illegally jailing Janice. The above Judges after a conversation with Judge Haddock, Martha Kent et al Janice believes the Judges believe they are above the law and by all appearance cooperating outside to find favor with others in the Judiciary
|
Honest Services Fraud 18 USC § 1961
|
Systemic denial of honest services of the court system, while perpetrating a kickback scheme to gain favor with others, or financial gain. To be seen as a game player with the “Old Boys Network” with the hope of pay raises, bonus and the payments towards dinners, parties, portraits or what ever the Judge may request of the lawyers which give the appearance of bribery. That Janice has seen first hand that the Judge’s and Lawyers who are friends talk prior to a trial and the decision is made prior to the trial for the better friend of the most Powerful Judge as in Janice’s case it is Judge Donald Kent and Judge Donald Haddock by appearance running the Judiciary et al in Virginia and in Washington DC it would be Judge Walton, Howell, Leon and Boasberg, and in the USDC of VA Judge Lee with appeals Judge’s Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Hamilton along with many other in the USDC of the District of Columbia
|
Gang Activity
|
|
Conspiracy 18 USC § 1961 VA code § 18.2-22
|
Collusion with numerous individuals and agencies to obstruct justice. Smearing character and reputation to obtain self-serving favors with the intention of causing overt denials of due process and blocking receipt of honest services while some judges have been seeking illegal payments. Deformation of Janice Wolk Grenadier
|
Public Assistance Fraud VA Code §18.2-469 Officer refusing, delaying, ect., to execute process for criminal
|
Participating in scheme to fraudulently obtain state and federal funds through the Hamp Program and extorted payments from me, for Ilona Grenadier Heckman and lawyers without legal or factual basis, with the intention of distributing the money among co-conspirators. That ignoring the banks $251 Billion in fines, allowing Lawyers not to answer complaint, ignoring TroutmanSanders aka Mays and Valentine conflict in all cases.
|
Egregious Legal Errors
|
|
42 U.S.C. § 1981 Equal Rights Under the Law
|
Participation in attempting to baselessly destroy Janice financially, physically and mentally. Collusion to illegally Libel and Slander with the Blog jwolkgrenadierisalair.blogspot.com USDC of District of Columbia denying restraining orders to win favor in a defamatory public opinion not issued without due process. Collusion to continue Libel and slander with other Judges and lawyers to protect colleagues. Ultimate goal of murder or suicide, without legal basis and accomplished through criminality, in both jurisdictions.
|
42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
|
Participation attempting to baselessly destroy Janice. Collusion to Libel, Slander with religious hate in a defamatory public opinion without due process. Ultimate goal of murder, suicide to make homeless without legal basis and accomplished through criminality, in both jurisdictions. To protect the criminal actions of Ilona Grenadier Heckman and those in the “Judicial, Government and Elected Officials” whom had already stepped outside the box of the law in the Cover Up of Lawyer Ilona’s actions
|
Due Process Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment no person “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”
|
Deliberate denial of substantive and procedural due process systemically favoring any opponent on the basis of Social Hierarchy to obtain favor with the Judiciary, the Government and other Elected Officials. Collusion to deny procedural due process in VA foreclosure proceedings – not allowing a Jury by Trial as demanded by Janice for fairness in the courts. That dismissing the complaint with baseless reasoning after proper motions and causing the issuance of unfounded rulings.
|
Social Hierarchy - Discrimination
|
Defined: Different degrees of power and authority by Persons who believe they are above the law as in Gov’t, Elected Officials & Judiciary when missed by these persons who believe “They make the laws for those that believe they are above the law so they do not have to follow the same laws” Discrimination for being poor, blacked balled by the Old Boys Network
|
Religious Discrimination 42 USC § 2000bb First Amendment of US Constitution
|
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of Religion – That all Bodies of the Judiciary, the Government and Elected Officials have supported Ilona’s HATE OF CATHOLICS et al
|
Decisions made in bad faith for a corrupt purpose deliberately and intentionally failing to follow the law
|
All decisions and Orders have been done deliberately to deny Due Process to protect the Criminal Acts and Knowledgeable actions of “FRIENDS and Colleagues”
|
Extrinsic Fraud See e.g., Schlossberg v. Schlossberg, 343 A. 2d 234 - Md: Court of Appeals 1975
|
Deliberately issuing unfounded, baseless orders with the knowledge of the Clerk of Court and collusion to lie to Janice. Perjury, Fraud, harassment seeking money,
|
Abuse of Contempt Powers VA § 18.2-456 (4) Misbehavior of an officer of the court in his official character (5)Disobedience or resistance of an officer of the court
|
Collusion with others in cases to deliberately deny due process to get case in a contempt posture, then issuing petitions and orders that do not comply with the statutory procedure and threaten contempt, incarceration and if I do not pay. Illegally incarcerating, torturing Janice from October 22 – November 12, 2014 for the hopes of her committing suicide when she was released, to prevent e-mails showing Mark Warner’s knowledge of the corruption in the Judiciary and the cover up of Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman, for pure abuse of Janice.
|
Ex parte Communications Judicial Canon 3(B)7 Virginia code of Professional Conduct
|
Deliberately conducting ex parte discussions with opposition and government agencies and doing their own investigations, then using the extrajudicial information to issue baseless rulings while also denying due process and seeking money for criminal acts by lawyers. That the hamp program offered by the government has been misused by the Banks and Lawyers which have been pled and ignored
|
Deformation / Libel / Slander VA Code §18.2 417 Slander and libel, 28 USC § 4101
|
That in collusion with the other judges the words /statements “frivolous” “Delusional, malicious & looking for frivolous law suits” saying I am Fantastic and fanciful nature by Gerald Bruce Lee and similar saying by other Judges. Janice has the documents and the proof of corruption by the Judiciary and Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman – Law firms DiMuroGinsberg and BWW Law Group and Troutman Sanders aka Mays & Valentine and the Judge’s for favor are colluding to cover up all criminal acts. That the use of Deformation is because the real law does not work, because the LAW is on the side of Janice.
|
Perjury VA Code § 18.2-10, § 18.2-434, § 8.01-4.3
|
That when the Judge’s signed Orders that were outside the law, not true and correct that were false in statements they committed Perjury. That Lawyers Ilona Grenadier Heckman, Ben DiMuro, Michael Weiser, Andrea Mosley, Judge John Tran, Hillary Collyer, filed documents and mislead this court Obstruting Justice with statement that they knew to be untrue
|
VA Code § 17.105
|
Designation of Judges to hold courts and assist other Judges – That all Judges in all cases by Janice have been by Judges that did not have Jurisdiction making all orders “VOID”
|
VA Code § 18.2 - 21
|
An Accessory, either before or after the fact, may, whether the principal felon be convicted or not, or be amenable to Justice or not be indicted, tried convicted and punished in the county or corporation in which he became accessory or in which the principal felon might be indicted.
|
VA Code § 18.2-481 Treason
VA Code § 18.2-482 Misprision of Treason
|
Treason Resisting the execution of the laws under color of its authority. If any person knowing of such treason shall not, as soon as my be, give information thereof to the Governor, or some conservator of the peach he shall be guilty of a Class 6 Felony
|
VA Code § 18.2-472
|
False entries or destruction of records by officers of the court – When Kemler, Dawkins and Clark mailed back documents submitted properly into the record ie Mail Fraud
|
VA Code § 18.2-168
|
Forging Public Records – Ilona Grenadier Heckman That when Ilona was involved with the forgery of Sonia Grenadier’s name in the Trust agreement and then after knowing and be caught forging continued to use such document with the help of other Lawyers, Government officials
|
VA Code § 18.2-455 Unprofessional Conduct: revocation of license
|
Conduct illegal by an attorney at law or any person holding license from commonwealth to engage in a profession in unprofessional conduct
|
That the above outlines only some of the criminal activity and collusion
Attached Exhibits but, all documents filed in the Supreme Court of Virginia, The Appeals Court of Virginia, The Circuit and General Court of the City of Alexandria and the Circuit Court of Prince Williams County which are available to this committee on line should be considered.
That Janice reminds this commission she is Pro Se and Poor – But HAS LEGAL STANDING due to the fact she has the LAW and the TRUTH on her side. The above Judges have acted criminal, deceitfully in collusion to cover up the criminal acts of Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman since on September 2007 when Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman LIED IN COURT, she and her attorneys have though out this process with the support of the Judges, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court supported this behavior.
Exhibit
|
Description
|
Pages
|
1
|
The Faces of the Murdered / Suicide and Survivor’s of the Old Boys Network in Northern VA - These 4 pages are a shore outline of the Criminal Activity
|
4
|
2
|
The Exhibits Filed in the USDC for the Eastern Division of Virginia The Exhibits give this commission the information in regard to the Criminal Acts of the Judges and Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman et al – Including Exhibit 35 GIC liquidation Agreement done by a Lawyer not licensed in Virginia
|
69
|
3
|
Letter Gov. Terry McAuliffe
|
1
|
4
|
Letter Gov. Terry McAuliffe
|
2
|
5
|
Letter Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons
|
2
|
6
|
Letter Director James Comey
|
3
|
7
|
Letter Senator Norment & Delegate Albo to apply for an appointment for the citizen position
|
1
|
8
|
Complaint Judge James Clark and back up
|
|
9
|
Complaint Judge Donald Haddock and back up
|
|
10
|
Complaint Judge Lisa Kemler and back up
|
|
11
|
Complaint Judge Nolan Dawkins and back up
|
|
12
|
Complaint Judge Thomas Fortkort and back up
|
|
13
|
Complaint Judge J. Howe Brown and back up
|
|
14
|
Complaint Judge James McGrath and back up
|
|
15
|
Complaint Judge Richard Potter and back up
|
|
16
|
Complaint Judge Carroll A. Weimer Jr and Judge Mary Grace O’Brien and back upn
|
|
That all documents have been submitted with the hopes of this Commission doing the right thing. That I would not have been illegally jailed if this Commission had done its job back in September of 2008.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Respectfully Submitted
Janice Wolk Grenadier
15 W. Spring Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22301
202-368-7178
Monday January 18 , 2016 was a holiday - on Tuesday - Two - 2 - working days later January 19, 2016 for all the Judges the following letter was sent to Janice: With this letter please keep mind the above letter stated very clearly that Janice did not expect the JIRC to change the outcome but, to prevent it from happening to someone else.
The State of Virginia has allocated $602,000 to support this Corrrpt Commission - That a few years ago as the letter states Janice voluntiered to become a member - Janice was dubbed a "PAIN IN THE ASS" and Janice's letter , phone calls and e-mails were ignored - The following shows that
1. The Budget amount,
2. The Letter from Janice to JIRC
3. The Detailed Information from the JIRC to the Legislature from 1999 - 2015 that shows they DO NOT INVESTIGATE any Virginia Citizens Complaints:
You will notice that one Judge retired last year. That was our Chief Justice Cynthia Kinser and by all appearance was the coverup of the relaease -of Micheal Gardener
If you have made it to here - you can see the evidence is clear the $602,000. SCAM to EMPOWER JUDGES in the State of Virginia to ignore the LAW. The Judges in PA went to jail for CASH for KIDS - JUDGE JAMES CLARK jailed JANICE WOLK GRENADIER CASH FOR LAWYERS
Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman
DiMuroGinsberg for Ben DiMuro, Judge John Tran, Hillary Collyer, Andrea Mosley
Michael Weiser Esq
Troutman Sanders aka Mays & Valentine
Keller Heckman
You will also want to read:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/299242956/State-s-Best-Kept-
Secret-is-Agency-That-Judges-the-Judges
THE VIRGINIAN PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 22, 1996 TAG: 9609230248
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARK DAVIS
LENGTH: 217 lines
STATE'S BEST KEPT SECRET IS AGENCY THAT JUDGE THE JUDGES
The complaint was filed in secret. The public was not told that a Norfolk judge may have acted improperly.
A government agency investigated the judge in secret. There was no public record.
A misconduct hearing was called in secret. The location was kept quiet. The agency would not confirm the judge's name or even that it was meeting.
Witnesses against the judge were called in secret. Subpoenas were not filed in open court, as they are in criminal cases. The witnesses' testimony may never be known. They were urged not to talk after the hearing.
A newspaper reporter who showed up was asked the leave the building, a Holiday Inn. The reporter stayed out in the hallway.
And in the end, Judge Luther C. Edmonds of Norfolk Circuit Court resigned under pressure.
That was nearly two weeks ago, and still nothing is known officially about the case, and probably nothing ever will be. Edmonds will go back to his private law practice in Virginia Beach and he will be eligible for a judge's pension in a few years.
The exact charges against himremain sealed. The nature of his alleged misdeeds remain unknown. The name of whoever filed the complaint against him remains confidential. The testimony against him is secret.
The system worked exactly as it was intended: The public will never be told why a sitting judge left office.
Lawyers call it The Jerk that's JIRC, short for Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.
It is the most powerful and most secretive government body you've never heard of.
How secret is Virginia's judicial commission? Consider the scene Sept. 12 when the commission heard charges against Edmonds.
Nothing at the Holiday Inn Executive Center on Greenwich Road hinted at the serious proceedings inside. It was 8:30 a.m. and the hotel buzzed with activity.
Several meetings were going on at once. In Parlor E, Navy officers discussed rescue techniques. In Parlor B, blue collar workers from Georgia Pacific talked shop. Their doors were open.
Across the hall in Parlor C, the door was closed and locked. No one was admitted without permission. There was no sign on the door or on the hotel marquee to tell visitors who was meeting there. Inside, the seven commission members three judges, two lawyers and two private citizens met.
The hearing started, then stopped abruptly. JIRC's chief counsel emerged to confront a VirginianPilot
reporter waiting outside.
``I am asking you to leave the building,'' Reno S. Harp III told the reporter. ``I can't order you to leave, but I am asking you to leave the building. Your presence here is threatening the confidentiality of the witnesses who will testify.''
It is that secret.
For 25 years, the JIRC has been meting out justice behind closed doors. This is required by the state constitution, under the heading of
``Disabled and unfit judges.'' It says, ``Proceedings before the Commission shall be confidential.''
How confidential are they? So confidential that, until 1993, it was a crime for witnesses to publicly discuss their testimony.
So confidential that, until 1978, it was a crime for newspapers to report that an investigation existed.
Technically, the commission is not all powerful.
Technically, it answers to the state Supreme Court, which has the real power to remove
or censure judges. Technically, the commission merely makes recommendations, and technically the most serious cases become public when the charges and transcript move to the Supreme Court.
But that rarely happens.
In 25 years, only six judges statewide have been publicly punished. And only one case resulted in a judge's removal a Richmond judge who gave away confiscated guns and liquor.
More often, judges under investigation resign, like Edmonds, and their cases fade away.
Many lawyers and judges say it is the fairest system possible. They say privacy is needed to protect judges' reputations from unfair attacks and to protect witnesses who are afraid to come forward.
``I know there's some debate about whether the entire process should be open,'' says commission chairman Theodore J. Craddock, a Lynchburg lawyer. ``I personally feel the system should stay the way it is. I've seen it work and I feel it works best . . .
``Anybody can make an allegation. I think the reputation of a judge can be unfairly attacked.''
The system is so secret that Craddock says he cannot offer examples of cases in which confidentiality was needed.
Richmond lawyer James C. Roberts has represented several accused judges before the commission. He agrees on the need for secrecy. He says many complaints against judges are worthless and deserve to be kept quiet.
Besides, Roberts says, ``You're more apt to have people come forward and be honest and candid under those circumstances than if the process had been public.''
Harp, the commission's chief counsel for 25 years, refuses to get drawn into the debate. He says simply that confidentiality is required by the state constitution ``and I'm required to follow it.''
He calls the commission ``the personnel department of the judiciary,'' an agency that deals with problem employees like any other.
In an interview earlier this year in the Newport News Daily Press, Harp said he sometimes works in the background to get at the root causes of judges' problems medication, for example, or alcoholism, or even a hearing aid.
Sometimes the commission simply eases a judge into retirement, sometimes for medical reasons, sometimes as a quick remedy to charges of misconduct.
For example, Judge Stephen Comfort retired from Chesapeake General District Court in 1993, saying he had become bored with the job.
A few days later, a friend said Comfort was forced to quit by the judicial commission. The friend said Comfort was being investigated for improperly intervening with another judge in the friend's child visitation dispute.
As in the Edmonds case, neither the judge nor Harp could comment because the investigation was confidential.
Last week, Harp said other ``personnel departments'' don't have to deal with problem employees in public.
The system has its critics. Richmond lawyer David P. Baugh may be the most outspoken. In 1990, he attacked the commission's confidentiality with a federal lawsuit.
He complained that his First Amendment rights were being violated because he could not talk about a complaint he had filed against a judge.
And he won. A federal judge ruled that Virginia cannot stop witnesses and complainants from talking about their cases.
As a result, the General Assembly in 1993 revoked the law that made it a crime. But the legislature made no other changes, and the commission still urges witnesses to remain silent after they testify, even after hearings are over.
That infuriates Baugh.
``The JIRC is the ultimate star chamber,'' Baugh says. ``I have a hard time keeping secrets from the people. We're paying the tab for this guy (a judge). We don't know the allegations against him. We don't even know if the allegations ought to be crimes . . .
``If I make a complaint against you and it's a crime, it becomes public. If I make a complaint against a judge, that's different . . . I don't like this secrecy. Secrecy and democracy don't mix.''
Norfolk City Treasurer Joseph Fitzpatrick agrees.
In 1979, when Fitzpatrick was a state senator, he tried to change the rules. His anger was sparked by secret misconduct hearings against
Norfolk Judge Joseph Jordan of General District Court.
The investigation was no secret. Many lawyers in town talked openly about the case. It was debated endlessly in the press. Eventually, the
commission did certify public charges against Jordan to the Supreme Court, and Jordan was publicly censured.
Fitzpatrick testified for Jordan in secret. He was furious that Jordan had been ``tried in the press'' without a public hearing. In the legislature, he called for a constitutional amendment to open the system.
Fitzpatrick lost that fight, but his opinion hasn't changed.
``It occurred to me that judges were subject to being found guilty without anyone ever knowing what the charges were,'' Fitzpatrick said last week. ``The more these things go on, the more convinced I am that . . . the public should know what a judge is being charged with and should be able to be a part of any action taken against a judge, through the media.''
Even accused judges who want their hearings open cannot change the law.
In 1990, for example, Portsmouth Judge Archie Elliott Jr. of General District Court was accused of misconduct. Again, it was a poorly held secret. Lawyers, including Portsmouth's top prosecutor, talked openly about the case. Elliott asked for an open hearing. The commission said no.
The commission never revealed the outcome of the hearing. It became public only after Elliott told a church congregation three days later that the charges against him had been dismissed.
``There were so many rumors floating around about different allegations,'' Elliott's attorney, Kenneth R. Melvin, said at the time. ``We wanted the people to know that the charges were essentially procedural allegations.''
Is there another way?
Most states are not as secret as Virginia. All 50 keep initial investigations private. But after that, 32 states make cases public when charges are filed against a judge, according to the American Judicature Society in Chicago.
Among the less secretstates are neighbors North Carolina, Maryland, West Virginia and Tennessee.
Unlike Virginia, seven states and the District of Columbia also allow an accused judge to waive confidentiality.
Only 13 states have systems similar to Virginia's, and six are more secret, including neighboring Kentucky.
In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that newspapers and broadcasters in Virginia cannot be prosecuted for truthfully reporting on the
JIRC. The issue arose after The VirginianPilot
was convicted of a misdemeanor and fined $500 for reporting that a judge was under
investigation.
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: ``The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern.
The operation of the Virginia commission (JIRC), no less than the operation of the judicial system itself, is a matter of public interest.''
After the ruling, JIRC's chairman breathed a sigh of relief. At least, he said, the hearings themselves will remain closed. A ruling against JIRC's secret nature ``would have killed the commission,'' he said.
The American Bar Association has a different take.
In 1991, an ABA commission reported that the public is suspicious of lawyers who discipline themselves in secret. The report focused on lawyer disciplinary systems not judicial discipline systems but found that lawyers hold themselves to different standards than the general
public.
``The irony that lawyers are protected by secret proceedings while earning their livelihoods in an open system of justice is not lost on the public,'' the ABA commission wrote.
``The public will never accept the claim that lawyers must protect their reputations by gag rules and secret proceedings.'' ILLUSTRATION:
JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION
When Judge Luther C. Edmonds, left, resigned, the public never
knew why. The commission kept secret the charges against him. The
name of whoever filed the complaint against him, and the testimony,
remains unknown, as well.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
The Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission has seven
members three judges, two lawyers and two laymen. They are
appointed by the General Assembly to fouryear
terms. The members are:
Chairman Theodore J. Craddock, Lynchburg lawyer.
Vice Chairman Thomas E. Glascock, Hampton lawyer.
Judge James H. Flippen Jr., Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court
Robert J. Grey, Richmond, retired from A.H. Robbins
John S. Massad Sr., Richmond, real estate
Judge Paul F. Sheridan, Arlington Circuit Court
Judge Joseph S. Tate, Marion General District Court
KEYWORDS: JUDGES JIRC JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND
REVIEW COMMISSION
Virginia Tech University Libraries DLA Contact Us PDF Viewers
This w ork is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercialShare
Alike 3.0 United States License.
URL: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VAnew
s/VAPilot/
issues/1996/vp960922/09230248.
No comments:
Post a Comment