Mary Jones

The filing of ADA Advocate JWG

VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK

IN RE: JANICE WOLK GRENADIER (JWG)
Pro Se - ADA ADVOCATE Case No. CL 1500- 0987-00
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH Other Case No. CL 1500- 254 & CL 1700-392

IN RE: WILLIAM WELLINGTON JONES, DECEASED

E. GRIER FERGUSON, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of William Wellington Jones
(dated June 16, 2006) and as Trustee of the William Jones Revocable Trust Agreement
Plaintiff

v.

MARY MARGARET JONES, Individually and as Executive of the Last Will and Testament of William
Wellington Jones (dated November 10, 2014)
Defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF JANICE WOLK GRENADIER, CERTIFIED ADA ADVOCATE
FOR COURT HEARING JULY 9, 2021
THE HEARING APPEARED TO BE ABOUT GIVING THE LAWYERS A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT /
FINAL ORDER TO STEAL EVERYTHING THAT JUDGE JONES HAD LEFT HIS DAUGHTER,
MARY MARGARET JONES

THE HEARING CONSISTED OF JUDGE H.THOMAS PADRICK Jr LYING, BULLYING,
INTIMIDATING THE PRO SE LITIGANT MARY MARGARET JONES and
EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND ATTORNEYS,
ALLISON R. ZIZZO, GLEN M. ROBERTSON and VANESSA STILLMAN, and
WITH A 2” - 3” NOTEBOOK THAT OPPOSING SIDE HAD and HAD GIVEN TO THE JUDGE
PRIOR TO THE HEARING, and NEVER GAVE TO MARY JONES
WHEN NOTEBOOK WAS REQUESTED, THE REQUEST WAS IGNORED and
ZIZZO STATED: “IGNORE HER AND GO”,

AS THE OPPOSING ATTORNEYS LEFT THE COURTROOM
THE BAILIFF IN THE COURT CONFIRMED WITH, JUDGE PADRICK HE HAD THE NOTEBOOK
and JUDGE PADRICK GAVE MARY MARGARET JONES THE COVER PAGE
THE ENTIRE HEARING LACKED DUE PROCESS

E. GRIER FERGUSON, THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY’S CLIENT AGAIN WAS A NO SHOW TO THE
HEARING. MR. FERGUSON, in NOVEMBER 2019 WAS REPRIMANDED BY THE VSB FOR
STEALING FROM OTHER TRUST ACCOUNTS

1 The Record will show Judge Thomas Padrick stating that Mary Jones was yelling at him. This was not true he
had asked her to take her mask off so he could hear her - Mary elevated her voice to ensure he could hear her.
Judge Padrick 2 -3 times stated that Mary Margret Jones was yelling at him to have it on the record.
1
Comes now Janice Wolk Grenadier Certified ADA Advocate, and Founder JudicialPedia.com,
pro se, files this Affidavit of Truth about the hearing IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF
SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA, on Friday, July 9th, 2021, states as follows:

1. I, Janice Wolk Grenadier pro se, am a U.S. citizen who resides in the City of Alexandria,
Virginia.
2. Judge H. Thomas Padrick, presiding, was appointed by Chief Justice Donald Lemons by the
Supreme Court of Virginia only for Case No. CL 1500 - 987.
3. That it appears in two other active Cases No. CL 1500 - 254 and Case No. CL 1700 - 392,
that Judge Padrick admitted in court he did not have Jurisdiction.
4. That Judge Padrick was appointed by Justice Donald Lemons to preside over three cases in
the City of Alexandria in regard to Janice Wolk Grenadier.
A. Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, who has several lawyers in the area, brought
lawyers from Virginia Beach (4 ½ hours away) “FRIENDS” of Judge Padrick to the
hearings.
B. Further Judge Padrick in an attempt to Intimidate and Bully Janice Wolk Grenadier
resorted to name calling and threats of Jail time, was disappointed that lawyers had not
requested sanctions.
C. Lawyer’s at Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders aka Troutman Sanders aka Mays &
Valentine in 1990 Swindled $30,000.00 from Janice Wolk Grenadier to cover up Trust
Theft by Divorce Lawyer, Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman.
D. Judge Padrick further had a conversation prior to the hearing for Janice Wolk
Grenadier in the City of Alexandria Circuit Court with Judge Donald Haddock who
retired in or around 2010. Judge Haddock in 2008 stated to Janice Wolk Grenadier
“She would never get a fair trial” because of his “LOVE LOVE LOVE” for Divorce
Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman. Judge Haddock all judges in the City of Alexandria
had recused themselves, based on the rules of the court then and now clearly state: §
17.1-105. Designation of judges to hold courts and assist other judges.
B. If all the judges of any court of record are so situated in respect to any
case, civil or criminal, pending in their court as to render it improper, in
their opinion, for them to preside at the trial, unless the cause or
proceeding is removed, as provided by law, they shall enter the fact of
record and the clerk of the court shall at once certify the same to the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall designate a judge of some other
court of record or a retired judge of any such court to preside at the trial
of such case.

E. Judge Haddock for over two years chose the Judges - his and Ilona’s friends. Judge
Haddock and the Supreme Court including Justice Donald Lemon ignored the law.
Justice Lemon's, when I asked him the law used, stated I needed to file a Motion with
the Supreme Court to see which laws were used. The Motion was denied because
there was no law used, it was done for favor. The selection of Judges by Judge
Haddock was done for favor and he also tampered with the Grand Jury.

1. Case No. CW 1800 1465, Commissioner of Accounts Gary Lonergan’s case in
RE: Janice Wolk Grenadier opened with no Notice to JWG with Troutman
Pepper Hamilton Sanders to steal Real Estate
2. Case No. CL 1800 - 1773, Case Voluntary Nonsuited by JWG
3. Case No. CL 1900 - 2675, Quiet Title Suit denied all rights by Judge Padrick
5. It should be noted Janice Wolk Grenadier has two cases in Orange County, Virginia for Ethics
Violations against Judge Thomas Padrick and Justice Donald Lemons et al.
1. Case No. CL 2100 0427 - 00 Orange County, Virginia Jury Trial Demanded
https://judicialpedia.com/listing/government-grievance-virginia-courts-are-racistpredatory-and-dishonest-jwg-v-chief-justice-of-the-supreme-court-of-virginia-do
nald-lemons-chief-judge-of-the-city-of-alexandria-circuit-court-donald/
2. Case No. CL 2100 - 0704 - 00 On tampering of the Transcripts
6. It should also be noted that Rhetta Daniel has filed Ethics Cases in Louisa County, VA, one is
against Judge Padrick, Justice Lemons attorneys E. Grier Ferguson, Allison Zizzo, Vanessa
Stillman and Glen Robertson et al, who in court on July 9, 2021 laughed when Judge Padrick
made reference to it.
A. Case No. CL 21-221 - Louisa, Virginia Circuit Court can be found:
https://judicialpedia.com/listing/circuit-court-declaratory-judgement-injunctions-and-man
damus-against-the-supreme-court-of-virginia-and-the-virginia-state-bar/
B. Case No. CL 21-209 - Louisa, Virginia Circuit Court can be found:
https://judicialpedia.com/listing/virginia-ethics-complaint-filed-in-louisa-circuit-court-agai
nst-chief-justice-donald-w-lemons-and-karen-gould-executive-director-of-the-virginia-st
ate-bar-et-al/

7. The Plaintiff, E. GRIER FERGUSON July 9, 2021 hearing was not present for the hearing but,
at the expense of the Will and or Trust had the following attorneys appear on his behalf:
A. Allison R. Zizzo, Shareholder at Midgett Preti Olansen, appeared to be the lead
attorney
B. Vanessa Stillman, Associate at Midgett Preti Olansen, sat behind the other attorneys,
did not speak but held the notebook which apparently had been given to the Judge in
ex-parte communications directly or indirectly, but had not been given to Defendant
Mary Jones.
C. Glen M. Robertson, partner of Wolcott Rivers Gates Attorneys at Law during the
hearing it was pointed out by Mary Margerat Jones, that Mr. Robertson had met with
her for 1 hour regarding the same issues prior to him joining the E. Grier Ferguson’s
team. When a Virginia State Bar complaint was filed based on his conflict of interest
Mr. Robertson apparently couldn’t remember that hour or so meeting?
8. That the appearance is Judge Padrick was chosen by Justice Lemons to take control of Mary
Jone’s and Janice Wolk Grenadier’s cases to insure they were silenced and harmed while the
Lawyers and past Judges were protected.
9. Chief Justice Donald Lemons, Judge Thomas Padrick, Chief Judge Donald May Haddock and
Judge James Clark , is/are licensed attorneys and Judges, who reside and have law licenses
as well as are/is active as Ret Judges in Virginia. Chief Justice Donald Lemons of the
Supreme Court in Richmond, Judge Thomas Padrick Ret from Virginia Beach area, Chief
Judge Donald May Haddock Ret from the City of Alexandria and Judge James Clark who sits
active in the City of Alexandria. It is the practice of the Supreme Court with retired Judges to
bring them back as Judges to hear cases they want ruled a certain way.
10. Judges in Virginia are an Enterprise of Secrecy through the Virginia Legislature, in collusion
with the Virginia State Bar and ignoring the voices of the people and those that speak out
against them. The Judges are chosen by who will work in collusion with the lawyers. It is a
mafia style system. Virginia and South Carolina are the only two states who choose Judges
this way. The other states elect their Judges leaving it to the people.
11. The “JIRC” Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission who review complaints on Judges,
shows Justice is for sale. JIRC is created by the Legislature as an judicial agency under the
supervision of the Supreme Court of Virginia,

12. Under the Virginia Statutes the public is led to believe “JIRC” is the correct agency to file
complaints about Judge’s acts and actions. JIRC supposed responsibility to hold Judges
accountable when they are in violation of the Judicial Canons, Rules, Regulation, Statues, the
Federal and State Constitution and Federal and State Laws. However JIRC along with the
State Bare have created RACIST, PREDATORY AND DISHONEST COURTS.
13. There is no statute of limitations when Judges act unethically, or engage in crimes. Judges
and Justices in Virginia must also be lawyers.
14. Only the courts in Virginia have Jurisdiction to discipline a Judge.
15. All Orders are “VOID” when a Judge enters them based on Bias.
16. IF a Judge enters an order not based on law and fact, but enters one for or on “FAVOR” the
Order is “VOID”
17. The court has no jurisdiction to enter Orders that are not grounded on Law and Fact.
18. I as a member of the public have the utmost concerns about the operations of the courts and
the acts and actions of the Judges.
19. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: ``The operations of the courts and the judicial
conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern.
STATEMENT OF FACTS FROM HEARING JULY 9, 2021
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK VIRGINIA
20. On Friday, July 9, 2021 the courtroom was opened at or around 9:48 am.
21. Posted on the Board outside of the Elevator it stated the case would be heard at 9:30 am, in
courtroom 3.
22. The online Docket stated 10:00 am for the hearing to be heard..
23. That at no time was it clear to Defendant and JWG ADA Advocate as to the exact time the
hearing would take place.
24. Judge Padrick arrived at or around 10:18 am due to hearing cases 4 hours away.

25. Judge Padrick made note of a “Bunch of Motions” filed by the Defendant.
26. Judge Padrick brought up the motion of how the Transcripts had been tampered with - he then
went into how long he had been a lawyer - judge etcetera and that he had never heard of that.
27. Judge Padrick was being disingenuous.
28. Mary Margreat Jones went on to explain the things left out of the transcripts.
29. Janice Wolk Grenadier’s transcripts with all her hearings with Judge Padrick appeared to be
"TAMPERED” with.
30. That Judge Padrick was asked by JWG to do an “ORDER” for her cases in the City of
Alexandria on or around May 5, 2021 for the audio. Judge Padrick ignored such a request.
The Law is clear:
§ 8.01-420.3. Court reporters to provide transcripts; when recording may be
stopped; use of transcript as evidence.
Upon the request of any counsel of record, or of any party not represented by counsel, and upon payment of
the reasonable cost thereof, the court reporter covering any proceeding shall provide the requesting party
with a copy of the transcript of such proceeding or any requested portion thereof.
The court shall not direct the court reporter to cease recording any portion of the proceeding without the
consent of all parties or of their counsel of record.
Whenever a party seeks to introduce the transcript or record of the testimony of a witness at an earlier trial,
hearing or deposition, it shall not be necessary for the reporter to be present to prove the transcript or record,
provided the reporter duly certifies, in writing, the accuracy of the transcript or record.
This letter is to Request an Order from Judge Thomas Padric or Chief Justice Donald
Lemons and a Demand to prevent that Paper documents, electronic records, including
personnel records of evidence be preserved, this includes and is not limited to:
● Electronic records
● Hard drives, backup discs, etc.
● Phone records (call logs, voice mails, text messages, etc.)
● Social media posts and correspondence
● Any other material evidence
31. That Judge Padrick should be concerned to ensure Due Process and fairness in the
courtroom.
32. That JWG filed suit against Judge Padrick and Justice Lemons whom he had stated in the
court in one of JWG’s hearings that he had been sued with in the past.

33. Judge Padrick then went on to discuss the lawsuits filed in Louisa County against him, and
the opposing lawyers. They all laughed and found this to be funny, that a 200 page suit
detailing the criminal activity of their acts and actions with Judge Daffron along with the
apparent theft of Real Estate and monies that they have never been required to account
for was funny.
34. Judge Padrick then refused to Recuse himself even after he later admitted at the hearing that
Ms. Jones's first attorney, Joshua Coe, had been a student of Judge Padrick who has been
teaching at Regent University in Virginia Beach where Atty Alison Zizzo also went to law school. It
should be noted that Joshua Coe answered the first Discovery, answers that Judge Padrick would
not accept.
35. Judge Padrick then went on to state the only thing they were there for was to decide if Mr.
Ferguson’s will that gave him control from 2006 was valid, and / or Mary Jones' will which
came after had standing.
36. Judge Padrick said he would have liked to have a Jury Trial to see this but, was going to
give the opposing side the Final Judgement for the Supreme Court to decide.
37. The reason Judge Padrick and the opposing side gave was very “FRIVOLOUS” it was due
to them not liking her discovery answers. But, never stated which ones or what was wrong
with them.
38. Judge Padrick appeared just as in JWG’s Case to be “FRIENDS” with the opposing
attorneys.
39. That Judge Padirck did not care about an accounting for the Trust and was not going
there,
40. Judge Padrick ruled the court felt ALL of Pro Se Mary Jones motions were not germane.
41. It was stated Mary Jones would not be allowed to have expert witness or expert
discovery? Mary Jones would not be allowed to supplement in a trial - but, since there
wasn’t ever going to be one - it didn't matter.
42. Mary Jones stated clearly she wanted and was fighting for “True Justice”.
43. That at or around 10:41 Judge Padrick after asking Mary to take off her mask so he could
hear her then kept stating her elevated voice should be noted as yelling at him for the
record.
44. Further discussion on the Discovery Abuse by the Plaintiff and his lawyers to Mary Jones.
45. Judge Padtick ignored that the opposing side did not answer discovery - his friends.
46. Discussion on how Glen Robertson had a possible issue as he could not remember
meeting with Mary Jones for about an hour prior to joining Ferguson's team. Which
created a conflict ignored by this court.
7
47. The opposing side entered into the record a document that they took out of a 2” - 3”
notebook and asked the Judge if he had received it.
48. Court ended on or around 11:11 am. At which point JWG noticed Mary did not have the
notebook that through ex-parte communicating the lawyers had given to the Judge a
notebook.
49. ADA Advocate asked the opposing side to give Mary Jones a notebook as Mary had
confirmed she had not received such a notebook.
50. Lead attorney Allison R. Zizzo stated to Vanassa Stillman and Glenn Robertson to not
respond to me and to get out of the courtroom ie: “IGNORE HER AND GO”
51. JWG made the comment to Allison Zizzo regarding ex parte communications with the
Judge, as she ran out of the courtroom refusing to give Mary Jones a notebook as she
had the Judge.
52. JWG then made the comment to Lawyer Zizzo “You wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in
the ass”.
53. This got the Bailiffs attention and he stated he would go back to the Judge and find out if
he had been given the notebook.
54. The Judge stated through the Bailiff he had been given the notebook which would have
been ex parte communications and the Bailiff gave Mary Jones what he called the Cover
Sheet of the notebook to confirm it.
55. That is why Judge Patrick was chosen for this case by Justice Lemons to clear it up and
give his “Friends” to opposing lawyers whatever they wanted.
56. Further in the hearing Lead attorney Zizzo stated how upset she was that this was still
going on and she wanted the case over. But, she also made it clear she was not willing to
turn the land over to Mary and end the case.
57. That Judge Patrick as a Judge could have ended the case today - handed Mary the only
thing left in the estate, the Land. But, this was again a lie. The lawyers want to sll the land
to their friends and continue to milk the Estate till it has no money left. This is the pattern
and practice of the Virginia courts.
58. Lead lawyer Zizzo stated they already had a contract on the property. What is the back
end deal between Ferguson, and his lawyers Zizzo, Stillman and Robertson.
59. It was obvious this hearing was to further loot the estate and ensure Mary Jones was
left with nothing.
60. That the entire hearing was like “Kangaroo Court” that lacked the following Elements of
Due Process:

a. Equality. The system must not discriminate procedurally between parties. If one
party is entitled to counsel, then all are entitled. If notice is provided one, it must
be provided for all. The essential requirement for Equality is that the system
provide a “level playing field" for the disputants. Discrimination in appearance or
fact is an anathema to the Equality required to satisfy due process.
b. Economy. The cost of access to the system must not be a barrier to its use or
operate to the disadvantage of one or the other parties. This means that
grievance and arbitration proceedings should not be made a Board profit center
and, in fact, may have to become subsidized to assure open access.
c. Expedition. As “justice delayed is frequently justice denied,” there is an
affirmative obligation on the part of the system to expedite ethics and
arbitration proceedings. This does not foreclose orderly procedure with
adequate time to ensure notice, time to prepare, opportunity to identify and
gather witnesses, and otherwise develop facts and arguments. It does, however,
foreclose dilatory tactics, unreasonable extension of time, and protraction of
hearings.
d. Evidence. The system must be designed and function to elicit evidence, not
assumptions; proof, not presumptions. While strict rules of evidence in the
judicial sense do not apply, there must be control of what is admitted as relevant
and judgment as to what is mere speculation and hearsay designed to prejudice
rather than inform.
e. Equity. The system must produce decisions that reflect a sense and substance
of “rightness” and “reasonableness.” In matters involving unethical conduct, the
punishment should fit the offense. The judgment should reflect consideration of
extenuating circumstances and a balancing of competing values and objectives.
Moreover, the predictability, consistency, and uniformity of the system’s
performance is an important measure of Equity.
A Pro Se Litigant

61. Such conduct by the Plaintiffs attorneys constitutes Ethical Misconduct and other civil or
criminal misconduct in violation of the following provisions of the Virginia Constitution , the
Constitution of the United States of America, and the Professional Code of Ethics.

62. That this court by appearance has violated Mary Margaret Jones, right to Due Process as
stated in the 5th and 14th Amendment, when dening fair hearings and showing a bias to Mary
Margaret Jones.

63. The law is very clear a pro se litigant is to be given equal treatment if not special treatment, especially in
a case where the intervening Person is a lawyer and has the financial ability to bring in as many
powerful unscrupulous lawyers to defend her criminal actions.
"Pro se plaintif s 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 suf iciency
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 plaintif 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)).

64. “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 re Murchinson, 349 U.S.
133, 136 (1955)”
No of icer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the of icers 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)” “Further it is the obligation of every Judge to honor, 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 courts, like 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)”

To ensure Justice and Fairness in this court Janice Wolk Grenadier as an ADAAdvocate sees that an
investigation is necessary by the correct authorities.

I hereby state that the information above is true, to the best of my knowledge. I also confirm that the
information here is both accurate and complete, and relevant information has not been omitted to the best of my knowledge.

Respectfully Submitted,

July 16, 2021
Janice Wolk Grenadier
15 W. Spring St.
Alexandria, VA 22301
202-368-7178
jwgrenadier@gmail.com

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _____ day of July, 2021, by Janice Wolk Grenadier.
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR City of Alexandria, Virginia,
My Commission Expires:
Serial Number