DOCSLIB.ORG

United States District Court District of Columbia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States District Court District of Columbia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ILONA ELY GRENADIER HECKMAN DAVID M. GRENADIER PLAINTIFFS Case No. V. CASE NO City of Alexandria VA: CL 15 - 003661 JANICE WOLK GRENADIER WELLS FARGO BANK GJJV PARTNERSHIP JAMES WARBASSE PADRIC KELLY O’BRIEN ARMY NAVY COUNTRY CLUB DEFENDANTS COUNTER CLAIM / CROSS COMPLAINT JANICE WOLK GRENADIER DEFENDANT V. ILONA ELY FREEDMAN GRENADIER HECKMAN ( Ilona) GREANDIER ANDERSON STARACE DUFFETT & KIESER (Grenadier Law et al) DAVID MARK GRENADIER (David) MICHEAL WIESER ESQ (M. WIESER) DIMUROGINSBERG BEN DIMURO (BEN) ANDERA MOSLEY STATE OF VIRGINIA BWW LAW GROUP (BWW LAW) TROUTMAN SANDERS AKA MAYS AND VALENTINE WELLS FARGO BANK Plaintiffs – AS PUBLIC SERVANTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT WHERE APPLICABLE ANSWER BY DEFENDANT JANICE WOLK GRENADIER TO COMPLAINT FOR JUDGEMENT CREDITOR’S SALE OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 15 WEST SPRING STREET, ALEXANDIRA, VIRGINIA COUNTER CLAIM AND CROSS COMPLAINT AGAINST PLAINTIFFS LISTED ABOVE DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY CAMERAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE COURT ROOM COMES NOW Defendant JANICE WOLK GRENADIER - PRO SE residing at and sole owner in the home at 15 West Spring Street, Alexandria, VA 22301 reserves the right to amend COUNTER CLAIM AND CROSS COMPLAINT AGAINST PLAINTIFFS, as well as add additional Parties per FRCP Rule 15 and 1 Virginia Rule as That Defendant Janice Denies all allocations and disingenuous statements made by Plaintiff’s and complains against the captioned Plaintiff’s under Counter Claim and Cross Complaint as follows: to seek relief for the violation of Federal and Constitutional rights under Title 42 U.S. Code § 1981 & 1983, Title 18 U.S. Code § 241 & 242 and under the Bill of Rights the Four Basic Freedoms are being Violated: 1. Freedom of Speech 3. Freedom of Want 2. Freedom of Worship 4. Freedom of Fear 5. In 1967, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas posed the following inquiry: “… What about the judge who conspires with local law enforcement officers to ‘railroad’ a dissenter? What about the judge who knowingly turns a trial into a ‘kangaroo’ court? Or one who knowingly flouts the Constitution in order to obtain a conviction? …” [Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 566-67 (1967)]. Those very issues raised by Justice Douglas over 40 years ago are now surfacing by way of this lawsuit, exposing the two original Plaintiffs and other’s such actors while serving as an example to others who might be intentionally abusing the protected rights of self-represented litigants. 6. 7. That Janice will show Lawyers and Judges colluded illegally to prevent the “TRUTH” being exposed of the actions of Divorce Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman and all the time bullying, and denying due process to ProSe Litigant Janice Wolk Grenadier. That Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier, Erika Ely Grenadier Lewis and David Mark Grenadier has stolen from Janice Wolk Grenadier roughly $20,000,000. (Twenty Million Dollars) without damages, that this court has denied Janice Wolk Grenadier Due Process going to the extreme to silence her by illegally Jailing her for two purposes: 1. Prevent the “TRUTH” and all the criminal acts and actions of Divorce Lawyer Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman and others in the Old Boys Network of Virginia and Washington DC being exposed. 2. That Senator Mark Warner may not had been re-elected if e-mails between his office and Janice in regard to the corruption of the Judiciary after his exposure of “PAY TO PLAY” by the Washington Post with other Virginia Officials to trade a Federal Judgeship to a Virginia Legislature’s daughter. That Janice went to him desperate for help to only find herself Jailed and his mocking her at a BiPartison Event on October 6, 2015 with the comment “Having Just been re-elected”, knowing Janice was Just a few feet away from him and she had been Jailed to prevent those e-mails from being released, shows the arrogance. 8. 9. That the appearance is the hope was while Janice was in Jail and with the warfare like torture she would come out and commit suicide. That the evidence will show that on September 2007, the slippery slope of the corruption to prevent the “TRUTH” began with Lawyer Ilona lying in court to Judge Kloch. That what would follow would be Judge Donald Haddock bringing in his friends / Judges (Judge Hoss refused, Judge Fortkort, Judge J.Howe Brown, Judge James McGrath, Judge Nolan Dawkins, Judge James Clark, Judge O’Brien (PWC) and Judge Weimer of Prince William County) all ignoring Va Rule 17.105 (b) with the support and help of the entire Virginia Judiciary Appeals Court, Supreme Court, Virginia State Bar and the JIRC) to rule in favor of Lawyer Ilona for his (Judge Donald Haddock) personal and others personal “LOVE” he claimed to have. The documents if allowed a fair trial with a Jury will show that the “TRUTH” is the COVER UP – includes the appearance of attempted MURDER FOR HIRE by Divorce Lawyer Ilona and David. 10. 11. That Lawyer Ilona is guilty of: Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Aiding and abetting obstruction of Justice, Fraud on the Court, Involvement of Forgery, Theft of money from the Sonia Grenadier Trust account through her law office for great personal gain over $20 Million in Real Estate, Theft of Herman Grenadier, joint and several liability, malpractice, Bribery, Abuse of her Oath of Office, Conspiracy, Collusion, Gang like activity mirror image to the Klu 2 Klux Klan, Miscarriage of Justice, preventing Due Process, conflict of interest – related to the practice of law, violating code of ethics, has liability to her victims, has violated Plaintiffs Religious, Political, Social, United state Constitutional, Virginia Constitutional and Civil Rights, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Violating RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Title 18 US Code 241 Conspiracy against rights, and 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law, Retaliatory & Retribution actions, Treason, Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, 18 USC § 912. With her Intention to 18 USC § 1341 -Frauds and swindles, Defraud, Breach of Contract, Arbitrary and Capricious behavior, Committed Fraud on the Court, § 18.2-498.3. Misrepresentations prohibited, § 18.2-172 - Judicial Misconduct; Criminal Misconduct; Mail Fraud; Honest Serves Fraud; Extortion; Harassment; Gang activity; Racketeering; Retaliation; Discrimination; et al. not limited to: decisions made in bad faith for a corrupt purpose, deliberately and intentionally failing to follow the law; Extrinsic fraud; Egregious legal errors; Violation of Procedural Rules; Violation of Due Process; uttering, etc., other writings et al. All of above charges will and can be proven with letters, documents, witnesses who have also been harmed by the actions of Lawyer Ilona. Many of the above charges are criminal and have jail sentences. 12. 13. That Janice will show the Plaintiffs Ilona and David have since December of 1986 stolen everything she has with the support of a Judiciary that will go to extreme lengths to protect one of their own – no matter how corrupt that lawyer is and reminds this court :"Pro se Janice is poor unable to hire an attorney and is 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)). 14. Further Janice reminds this court she does not have the financial means of Ilona and David that she has everything stolen from her by them and that she has no intention of backing down and allowing these criminal acts of now trying to steal her home to protect not only Lawyer Ilonas criminal acts but the criminal acts of the attorneys that have supported Lawyer Ilonas criminal acts. 15. 16. That all of this could have been prevented if the FBI, the City of Alexandria Police, the Judiicay, the Government and Elected Officials had done there job. If the Judges had ruled by law and not Friendships, using Orders to slander Janice, disallow her any defense only to protect one of there own. 17. 18. Further Claims are outlined in this answer and Counter Complaint. 19. DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY, CAMERA IN THE COURT ROOM 20. 21. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Janice incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs above 2. This court has original Jurisdiction of federal questions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 – 1332. The court has supplemental Jurisdiction of state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). That Plaintiffs Ilona Ely Grenadier Heckman resides in the District of Columbia and has since on or around 1990 or earlier, that David Mark Grenadier resides in Silver Spring, Maryland since on or around 2006.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The History of Legal Education in Virginia, 14 U
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 14 | Issue 1 Article 9 1979 The iH story of Legal Education in Virginia W. Hamilton Bryson University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation W. H. Bryson, The History of Legal Education in Virginia, 14 U. Rich. L. Rev. 155 (1979). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol14/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE HISTORY OF LEGAL EDUCATION IN VIRGINIA W. Hamilton Bryson* I. BEFORE 1779 The English Inns of Court in London had ceased to perform their educational functions in the middle of the seventeenth century.' For the next hundred years or so, there was no formal or organized instruction of the English common law. Lawyers, both barristers and solicitors in England and in America, learned their profession as best they could in unstructured situations. They learned by serv- ing as apprentices or clerks to practicing lawyers, by the indepen- dent reading of law books, and by observation in the courtroom itself.2 Although the four Inns of Court in the eighteenth century no longer gave an education, they did give the professional degree of barrister. A barrister was deemed to be of the social degree of an esquire. The Inns of Court thrived in the eighteenth century because they controlled the admission of barristers to the practice of law, pretended to supervise the general conduct of the bar, and provided office space and a social club for their members.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Lawyer April 2015
    Virginia LawyerVOL. 63/NO. 6 • APRIL 2015 VIRGINIA LAWYER REGISTER The Official Publication of the Virginia State Bar Downton Abbey and Thomas Jefferson Senior Lawyers Conference According to legend, an ostrich will shove its head in the sand when confronted with something unpleasant. I think you’ll agree - probably not the best approach. Employee benefits specialists dedicated to the needs of Virginia law firms. Are you ready for our changing health insurance environment? » Health insurance Robert Spicknall, CEBS, President » Term-life insurance P: 877.214.5239 » Disability insurance E: [email protected] » And more www.vsbmic.com VIRGINIA STATE BAR MEMBERS’ INSURANCE CENTER an affiliate of Digital Benefit Advisors endorsed by the Virginia State Bar Virginia Lawyer The Official Publication of the Virginia State Bar April 2015 Volume 63/ Number 6 Features SENIOR LAWYERS CONFERENCE Noteworthy VSB NEWS 25 Downton Abbey and Thomas Jefferson: Primogeniture, Entails, and More 38 Highlights of the February 28, by Frank Overton Brown, Jr. 2015, Virginia State Bar Council Meeting 32 Senior Citizens Law Day in Eastern Henrico County PEOPLE 33 The Honorable Buford M. Parsons Jr. 38 Jerrauld C. Jones Presented with the Carrico Professionalism Award by The Honorable L. A. Harris Jr. 39 Retired Magistrate Judge B. Waugh 34 Virginia Advance Health Care Directives and the Crigler Receives the Virginia State Bar Leadership in Education Award Virginia Health Care Directive Registry by Victoria J. Roberson 40 Betty Moore Sandler Honored for Lifetime Achievement in Family Law 37 Russell Alton Wright 40 Local and Specialty Bar Elections by Fielding L. Williams Jr. 41 Colleen M.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of Virginia
    CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA Effective July 1, 1971 with Amendments – November 15, 2020, and January 1, 2021 Issued by the Clerk's Office Virginia House of Delegates Commonwealth of Virginia Richmond January 2021 1000121820 CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA FOREWORD The Virginia Constitution of 1971 was approved by vote of the people on November 3, 1970, and became effective on July 1, 1971. The 1971 Constitution is the fifth complete revision of Virginia's fundamental law since 1776--other complete revisions having been effective in 1830, 1851, 1870, and 1902.1 The revision which led to the adoption of the Constitution of 1971 began with the creation of the Commission on Constitutional Revision, authorized by joint resolution at the General Assembly's 1968 Session and appointed by Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr. The Commission, chaired by former Governor Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., reported to the Governor and the General Assembly in January 1969. The revisions took the form of amendments--one of two ways to change the Virginia Constitution (the other way being by the calling of a constitutional convention).2 The General Assembly, at a special session called in 1969, approved amendments which, with two exceptions,3 were approved for a second time at the Assembly's regular session in 1970 and then laid before the people at the general election in November 1970. There were four proposals on the November ballot--a general question containing the main body of the revised Constitution and three separate questions (one repealing the constitutional prohibition on lotteries, and two dealing with borrowing by the Commonwealth).
    [Show full text]
  • 2002 Digest of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia
    DIGEST OF THE ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA AT THE 2002 SESSION which commenced at the Capitol in the City of Richmond on January 9, 2002, and adjourned sine die March 9, 2002. Published for THE VIRGINIA CODE COMMISSION by THE DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Commonwealth of Virginia Virginia Code Commission General Assembly Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 2002 MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA CODE COMMISSION William J. Howell, Chairman William C. Mims, Vice-Chairman Robert L. Calhoun John S. Edwards Frank S. Ferguson* James E. Kulp R. Steven Landes E. M. Miller, Jr. Thomas M. Moncure, Jr. James B. Wilkinson * Designated by the Attorney General to represent him on the Commission. DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Editorial and Administrative Staff Robert J. Austin Heather K. Butros Lisa M. Gilmer Kendall C. Patterson Notice Please note that 2002 is the last year that copies of the Digest will be distributed free of charge. Beginning in 2003, individuals may request print copies of the Digest by calling (804) 786-1985, but will be charged a fee to cover printing and mailing costs. The Digest will continue to be available free of charge on the Internet. The web address is http://legis.state.va.us/codecomm/digest. PREFACE This Digest of the Acts has been prepared to give an overview of the legislation adopted during the 2002 Regular and Reconvened Sessions of the General Assembly of Virginia, prior to publication of the 2002 Acts of Assembly. These brief notes are not detailed synopses of the acts, but are intended to point out the major features of new measures or the principal changes in existing law.
    [Show full text]
  • A Constitutional Right to Preschool?
    A Constitutional Right to Preschool? James E. Ryant Access to publicly financed preschool looms as the next big issue in education law and policy. State programs, which now exist in forty states and the District of Columbia, have mushroomed over the last decade, com- plementing the well-established federal Head Start program. Currently, about 25% of all three- and four-year-olds attend publicly funded pre- school,' and a bit more than 25% attend private preschool.' This leaves slightly less than half of this age cohort out of preschool altogether. Those left out number in the millions, and they tend to be from relatively poor and less-educated families.' Public support for increasing access to preschool is substantial and diverse. Groups across the political spectrum are championing the cause, including teachers' unions, business associations, anticrime groups, philan- thropic foundations, and even analysts from the Federal Reserve Bank.4 Copyright © 2006 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. t William L. Matheson and Robert M. Morgenthau Distinguished Professor, University of Virginia School of Law. Thanks to Barry Cushman, James Forman, Michael Heise, John Jeffries, Mike Klarman, Melanie Leslie, Daryl Levinson, Goodwin Liu, Liz Magill, Jeff Rachlinski, Aaron Saiger, Tom Saunders, Peter Schuck, Scott Shapiro, Ted White, and participants at faculty workshops at Cardozo and Comell Law Schools for helpful conversations and comments, and to Lisa Chadderdon, Greg Henning, Monika Moore, and Megan Strackbein for excellent research assistance. Special thanks to the research librarians at the University of Virginia Law School for expert and cheerful assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • EDVA Local Rule 83.1
    LOCAL RULES FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Effective December 1, 2020 2 CONTENTS LOCAL CIVIL RULES LOCAL CIVIL RULE 1 SCOPE OF RULES ................................................................................................................................................ 7 LOCAL CIVIL RULE 3 AREA AND DIVISIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 8 LOCAL CIVIL RULE 4 SERVICE AND RETURN OF SUMMONS – ABATEMENT ............................................................................ 10 LOCAL CIVIL RULE 5 REQUESTS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND THE HANDLING OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7 PLEADINGS – MOTIONS – CONTINUANCES – ORDERS ............................................................................ 13 LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7.1 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE ................................................................................................................................ 16 LOCAL CIVIL RULE 16 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE................................................................................................................................. 17 LOCAL CIVIL RULE 26 DISCOVERY AND DISCLOSURE ..................................................................................................................... 18 LOCAL CIVIL
    [Show full text]
  • VBA News Journal Editor Kimberly L
    VBA• • THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THENews VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION • VOL. XXXIV,Journal NO. 5 • DECEMBER 2007/JANUARY 2008 118th VBA Annual Meeting Preview Inside January 17 - 20, 2008, Williamsburg Lodge and Conference Center OPTIMA HEALTH through The Virginia Bar Association’s insurance agency subsidiary Virgina Barristers Alliance, Inc. GROUP ADVANTAGES The value added benefits are available to all groups with 2-99 employees Groups in the Association program are individually underwritten Groups receive the value added benefits listed below at no additional cost to the member Annual gynecological exam and Pap test Annual mammogram and colorectal cancer screenings Routine prostate exam and PSA test Routine immunizations and well child care Reductions in specialist office visits and outpatient surgery co-payments Additional Employee Assistance Programs sessions Limited to certain geographical locations at this time. Virginia Barristers Alliance, Inc. THE INSURANCE AGENCY SUBSIDIARY OF THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION 4880 Sadler Road, Suite 110, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 (804) 290-8720 direct line • 1-800-358-7987 toll-free • (804) 762-4192 fax • email: [email protected] THE VIRGINIA BAR ASSOCIATION VOLUME XXXIII, ISSUE 5 VBA• • DECEMBER 2007/JANUARY 2008 701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1120 Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 644-0041 FAX (804) 644-0052 News Journal E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.vba.org 4 • President’s Page President Thoughts on the Power of Role Models Glenn C. Lewis, Washington, D.C. Glenn C. Lewis President -elect G. Michael Pace Jr., Roanoke 7 • The Virginia Bar Association Renames Award for Chair, Board of Governors Governor Gerald L. Baliles John D.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Council of Virginia
    2002 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA 2002 Judicial Council of Virginia Report to the General Assembly and Supreme Court of Virginia General Information for Individuals With Disabilities The Court System has adopted a policy of non-discrimination in both employ- ment and in access to its facilities, services, programs and activities. Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation in order to have access to court facilities or to participate in court system functions are invited to request assistance from court system staff. Individuals (not employed by the court system) with disabilities who believe they have been discriminated against in either employment or in access may file a grievance through local court system officials. Those who need printed material published by the court system in another format, those who have general questions about the court system in another format or those who have general questions about the court system's non-discrimination policies and procedures may contact the Office of the Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia, 100 North Ninth Street, Third Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219. The telephone number is 804/786- 6455; communication through a telecommunications device (TDD) is also available at this number. The Judicial Council of Virginia 2002 Report to the General Assembly and Supreme Court of Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond, 2003 Judicial Council Report 2002 IMPORTANT NOTICE: Table of Contents Page numbers on Table of Contents Letter from Harry L. Carrico, Chief Justice of Virginia refer to printed page numbers NOT page The Judicial Council of Virginia .
    [Show full text]
  • The Rules of Court for the General District Courts of Virginia, 23 U
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Richmond University of Richmond Law Review Volume 23 | Issue 4 Article 18 1989 Annual Survey of Virginia Law: The Rules of ourC t for the General District Courts of Virginia J. R. Zepkin Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation J. R. Zepkin, Annual Survey of Virginia Law: The Rules of Court for the General District Courts of Virginia, 23 U. Rich. L. Rev. 809 (1989). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol23/iss4/18 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RULES OF COURT FOR THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF VIRGINIA J. R. Zepkin* In the spring of 1986, a proposal was made to the Advisory Com- mittee on the Rules of Court to the Judicial Council of Virginia (the "Advisory Committee") for a reorganization and review of the Rules of Court for the general district courts. The Advisory Com- mittee authorized the creation of a subcommittee. The charge to the subcommittee included the following goals: 1. Promote uniformity of procedure among the general district courts of Virginia; 2. Provide ease of location by having all of the rules that apply to the general district court grouped in one location; 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Practice and Procedure
    VIRGINIA PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Part One Professor Kent Sinclair © 2010 T A B L E OF C H A P T E R S VOLUME 1 Chapter 1 – The Virginia System Chapter 2 – Alternatives to Litigation Chapter 3 – Applicable Law & Equitable Principles Chapter 4 – Parties and Claims Chapter 5 – Venue and Forum Non Conveniens Chapter 6 – Service of Process and Personal Jurisdiction Chapter 7 – Default Chapter 8 – Pleadings and Motions Chapter 9 – Joint Tortfeasors – Release & Contribution Chapter 10 – Medical Malpractice Basics VOLUME 2 Chapter 11 – Responsive Pleadings, Counterclaims, Cross-claims and Third Party Practice Chapter 12 – Immunity Doctrines in Virginia Chapter 13 – Summary Judgment Chapter 14 – Sanctions in Virginia Law Chapter 15 – Finality and Relitigation Chapter 16 – Limitation of Actions Chapter 17 – Discovery Chapter 18 – Pretrial Conferences, Management of Case Preparations, and Dormancy Chapter 19 – Nonsuits and the 21-Day Rule Chapter 20 – Jury Trial Rights and Procedures - 1 - VOLUME 1 Chapter 1 -- The Virginia System A. Codes and Rules.........................................................................................................28 Code §8.01-3............................................................................................................30 Rule 3:1……............................................................................................................30 Rules Titles or "Parts"..............................................................................................31 B. Admission to Practice Law........................................................................................33
    [Show full text]