1

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

2

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,

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

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 eight-

year 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

7

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.

8

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 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 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

9

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

10

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.4th, 434, 447, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 (1993).

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

(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

15

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.

16

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

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

Nathaniel Patrick Lee, Esq.

McGuireWoods, LLP

1750 Tysons Blvd Suite 1800

McLean, VA 22102-4215

June 23, 2015

Janice Wolk Grenadier

ProSe