Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6. That no where can a Pro Se Litigant Janice find where it is not required for the Lawyer
and the Law firm properly served and the Lawyer whom works with the Law firm to lie,
mislead the opponent and not file an answer to the complaint.
7. That in Pro Se Litigants Claims the following is brought to the attention of the Courts and ignored, due
to lawyers who are paid millions and have personal connections with the Bank and Judges:
Count 1 - Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(A); 31 U. S. C. 3729 (a)1(B);
31 U.S.C. (a)(1)(C)
1. This is a claim for treble damages and forfeitures under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.
3729 et seq.
2. The Defendants created, sold or participated in Mortgage backed securities. The Mortgage
backed Securities were composed of mortgages bundled to create the securities in which
the mortgages lacked the requisites to create a secured, real estate debt obligation,
namely:
The legally binding assignments from the originating bank to the securities trust and,
and finally, to the foreclosure agent
Recording of Title in the Cities Clerks office
Original Note and Mortgage, signed by both borrower and lender. The prospectus for
each mortgage-backed securities trust, and other public statements, falsely
represented that the trust held good title to the mortgages and notes bundled in the
securities.
3. By Virtue of the wrongful conduct alleged here including, but not limited to, the false
signatures used in manufactured mortgage assignments, each of the mortgage-backed
securities sold to the Treasury, or other entity funded by the U.S. government, violated state
and federal laws and furthered an effort to transfer impaired securities to the Treasury, or
other government funded entity. Defendants and their agents and employees falsely
represented that they held good title to 15 W. Spring Street. Defendants received millions of
dollars in U.S. government funds to provide services involving fraudulent mortgage
assignments. Accordingly, the Defendants and their agents and employees knowingly
presented or caused to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval
from the government entity purchasing the mortgage-backed securities.
4. Defendants and their agents and employees falsely represented that they had good title to
15 W. Spring Street. When in Fact they had in there knowledgeable fraudulent actions
created a cloud on the Title making the home unsellable.
5. Defendants acted in concert to create fraudulent legal documentation to conceal that the
trust was missing title to the asset, thus impairing the value of the security sold to the
treasury, or other government funded entity. Each of the mortgage-backed securities sold
to the Treasury, or other government funded entity, was in violation of state and federal law.
COUNT 2 - Breach of Contract Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Breach of
Contractual Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Honest Services 18 U.S.C. 1346
6. By virtue of the facts stated above, defendants have violated their contractual duty of good
faith and fair dealing. Honest Service under 18 U.S.C. 1346 the Defendants schemed to
foreclose on Plaintiffs home with forged documents, with knowledgeable intend of Fraud.
7. The above defendants and defendants representatives breached their contractual duty of
good faith and fair dealing when they refused to provide the requested original Note.
8. That the above defendants Breach of Contract includes not limited to their involvement
with breaking the chain of title and creating a situation where Plaintiff could not sell the
home . The documents speak for themselves the defendants were aware of these
breaches.
9. Plaintiff through implied covenant of good faith and Fair Dealing continued to work with the
different Servicing groups even after they continued to lose paper work, and make false
claims, and advertise her home for a Foreclosure Sale.
10. The defendants flagrantly violated their Fiduciary responsibility to Plaintiff to deal in Good
Faith while Plaintiff continued to deal in Good Faith.
11. That a Breach of Contract was created when the documents by Wells Fargo, Bank of
America were forged, by known robo signers.
Count 3 - Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C 1692, ET
SEQ.)
12. Defendants used unfair/unconscionable means to try and foreclose illegally and unethically
on 15 West Spring Street while Plaintiff was under the production of the HAMP program as
described in paragraph 8.
Count 4 - Wrongful Foreclosure Threat Failure to Comply with HAMP rules
13. HAMP PROHIBITS A PARTICIPATING server from taking several actions including the
following:
Proceeding with a foreclosure sale. Any foreclosure sale must be suspended and no
new foreclosure action may be initiated during the trial period, and until the borrower
has been considered and found ineligible for other available foreclosure prevention
options.
Requiring a borrower to make an initial contribution payment pending the processing
of the trial period plan before the plan starts.
Soliciting borrowers to opt out of consideration for HAMP during the temporary review
period.
Reporting borrowers as delinquent to credit reporting bureaus without explanation.
For borrowers who are current when they enter a trial period, the servicer should
report the borrower current but on modified payment if the borrower makes timely
payments during the trial period. For borrowers who are delinquent when they enter
the trial period, the servicer should report in such a manner that accurately reflects
the borrowers current workout status.
Assessing prepayment penalties for full or partial prepayment as part of the
modification.
14. The HAMP rules where expressed to Plaintiff several times by AHMSI, Homeward and
OCWEN - that you could not be foreclosed on while you were being considered for
3
the program.
15. It is documented that lawyers are nervous of losing the financial gain of Foreclosures
stopping due to their illegal and unethical practices. That if the homeowner gets into the
HAMP program and an adjustment is made to the loan the lawyer losses an extra
$50,000 or more. he gets from a foreclosure.
16. BWW Law group had no other motivation to foreclose on Plaintiff except for financial
gain, greed and the exposure of their illegal and unethical practices.
17. The attached e-mails in the Exhibits back up these intentions being malicious, violent,
oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless.
Count 5
Consumer Protection Act
18. Bank of America and Wells Fargo used representatives to use unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in forgery and robo signing of documents.
19. The deceptive acts of BWW Law Group caused JWG the loss of Funding for her company,
and the opportunity to meet the guidelines needed for the Hamp Loan.
Count 6
Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Unjust Enrichment/Constructive Trust
20. BWW Law breached its Fiduciary Duty when it put its financial gain above the law and the
rights of Plaintiff.
21. BWW Law breached its Fiduciary Duty when it ignored the HAMP rules for financial gain
and greed.
22. Bank of America and its representatives breached its Fiduciary Duty with the Robo
Signing / forgery of documents breaking the chain of title on 15 West Spring Street.
23. Well Fargo and its representative breached its Fiduciary Duty with the Robo Signing /
forgery of documents breaking the chain of title on 15 West Spring Street.
24. BWW Law Group, Howard Bierman, and , Mark Galbraith breached their Fiduciary Duty
with the refusal of production of the original Note or any proof of the right to Foreclose on
15 West Spring Street.
Count 7
Injunctive / Declaratory Relief
25. That Plaintiff now needs to pray this court grants temporary or permanent injunctive relief
as Plaintiff resides in the property and as Defendants are seeking, through illegal and
unlawful means and without satisfying the necessary legal standing requirements to
institute a foreclosure, take possession, custody, and control of the Property.
Count 8
Common Law Fraud12 U.S.C 1972
26. On several occasions Plaintiff sent money to the Servicing agency of Wells Fargo and Bank
of America to only have funds returned and agreement squashed.
27. It is very well documented that the Mortgage Servicers were instructed to not take any
payments and to "work with you" only after borrowers fall behind in payments. Once
borrowers fall behind on purpose and at the lender's request, foreclosure proceedings
begin in earnest. The Foreclosure lawyers and their friends are the beneficiary in the game,
as is seen in Paragraph 52 with the amount of money Shapiro and Burson have reported
making from being one of Freddie Mac Servicers.
28. The defendants or their representatives on several occasions made false statement of
4
material facts. ie OCWEN Ignore the Foreclosure it is illegal for them to as you are in the
HAMP program process
29. The defendants and or their representatives making these statements knew or should
have known it to be untrue;
30. Plaintiff to whom the statement was made had a right to rely on the statement; but,
fortunately knew how deceitful the defendants had been in the past.
31. Plaintiff relied on the statement for as long as time permitted.
32. Plaintiff believes the statement was made for the purpose of inducing the other party to be
able to Foreclose on Plaintiffs home and gain financially.
33. Plaintiff relied on the Banks and their representatives at Homeward and OCWEN to not
foreclose and to give Plaintiff her legal right the opportunity to get Funding for her company
and the opportunity to keep her home.
34. These statement made created a situation that Plaintiff was not able to get the funding
needed for her company, giving her the income to qualify for a loan.
Count 9
Negligence the negligent infliction of emotional distress; the intentional infliction of
emotional distress
35. The defendants had a legal duty to use reasonable care to protect the Chain of Title to the
property at 15 West Spring Street. By not doing this simple act the defendants malicious
actions caused great emotional distress to Plaintiff.
36. The actions of the actors to cause this emotional distress were malicious, violent,
oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless.
37. The defendants failed in their duty and unreasonably caused emotional distress to Plaintiff
with intentional infliction of emotional distress. The negligence is sufficient to support
this cause of action.
38. The defendants were negligent in all actions against Plaintiff and 15 West Spring Street not
following the law and the Rules of the HAMP program.
39. The defendants had a Fiduciary Duty to Plaintiff and 15 West Spring Street.
Count 10
Constructive Fraud
40. The defendants were deceptive of material misrepresentations of past and existing facts
and remained silent when a duty to speak existed.
41. The defendants actions were Arbitrary and Capricious absence of a rational connection
between the facts found and the choices made, made choices that were not in accordance
with the law.
Count 11
Civil Conspiracy
42. The Collusion of the Defendants to prevent Plaintiff from the chance at the HAMP
refinance, of the loan for her company, was done with malicious, violent, oppressive,
fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless intentions.
43. Defendants Civil Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
44. Civil conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood by advertising 15 West Spring St in the
newspaper for a Foreclosure Sale that violated the Law and Rules of HAMP.
45. Defendants were in collusion of civil conspiracy to intentionally inflict emotional distress.
5
That when a Pro Se Litigant files a document in the USDC of the Eastern Division of Virginia
(Alexandria) they must sign document stating they received no help from an attorney giving way for
the law to be used than that as a Pro Se Litigant you are not expected to know the law as a lawyer
would and you are not allowed to consult with a lawyer. "Pleadings in this case are being
Section 1985(3) under Title 42 reaches both conspiracies under color of law
and conspiracies effectuated through purely private conduct. In this case
Plaintiff has alleged a class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus is
behind the conspirators' action as the court records reflect. That actionable
cause is the treatment of a non-lawyer pro se litigant as a distinct "classbased subject" of the Court, wherein denial of equal protection of the laws
and denial of due process was clearly the product of bias and prejudice of
the Court. See Griffen v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971).
The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in Bray v. Alexandria Women's
Health Clinic 113 S.Ct. 753 (1993) that the standard announced in Griffen
was not restricted to "race" discrimination. It is therefore reasonable to
assume that 1985(3) may be used for "class-based" claims other than race
as alleged in this case. It is also important to note in Bray the U.S. Supreme
Court's
interpretation of the requirement under 1985(3) that a private conspiracy be
one "for the purpose of depriving... any person or "class" of persons of the
equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the
laws, which the Court said mandates "an intent to deprive persons of a right
guaranteed against private impairment.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Griffen emphasized 1985(3) legislative history
was directed to the prevention of deprivations which shall attack the
equality of rights of American citizens; that any violation of the right, the
animus and effect of which is to strike down the citizen, to the end that he
may not enjoy equality of rights as contrasted with his and other citizens'
rights, shall be within the scope of remedies... Id. at 100.
Supreme Court has ruled that "private parties" may be held to the same
standard of "state actors" in cases such as the instant cause where the final
and decisive act was carried out in conspiracy with a state official. See
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 101 S. Ct., 183 and Adickes v. S.H. Kress &
Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S. Ct. 1598.
The Complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that
Plaintiffs would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts that could be
proved in support of the claims. See Gomez v Toledo (1980, US) 64 L Ed 2d
572, 100 S Ct 1920. That Plaintiff has pled and shown criminal acts by the
Attorneys and Banks even if not stated properly the complaint should not be
dismissed. The ruling of the court in this case held; "Where a plaintiff
pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the court should
endeavor to construe the Plaintiff's pleading without regard to
11
allowed Banks and Lawyers the leeway to not respond to the Complaint. That new information of
conflict is in appeal.
2. Lack of Discovery, Admission and Depositions: Denied Janice Wolk Grenadier What law allows for
all evidence in a complaint to be ignored including forgery, perjury of attorneys? What law makes
forgery of documents filed in the courts against ones home legal? What law says perjury by a lawyer is
legal? What law states a scheme to defraud by an attorney is legal?
3. Motion for Default Judgment for not responding to Complaint What law allows for attorneys and law
firms to ignore the rules of the courts, to not respond to the complaint, to lie to the opposing side even
though the opposing side is ProSe?
4. Conflict of Interest with Troutman Sanders What law allows conflict of Interest for criminal acts of
Troutman Sanders (aka Mays and Valentine) against Janice Wolk Grenadier?
That the law is very clear that Complaints are to be answered in a 21 day time frame. The docket shows the
Defendants to be served. The Janice Wolk Grenadier Poor, indigent due to criminal acts against her by the
above Defendants - the Court / the Marshalls took on the responsibility of making sure all parties were served.
The Docket shows all parties served the Docket shows one lawyer for BWW Law Group, Equity Trustees,
Howard Bierman, that lawyer filed an answer to the complaint for Equity Trustees and stated he would be doing
the same for the others, by all appearance and documentation this was a false statement. That by all appearance
the deliberate actions was to not be held accountable for such acts as forgery and perjury of Howard Bierman
and BWW Law Group as documented and Exhibits showing such truth. Please clarify the law allowing these
knowledgeable criminal acts of attorneys being legal.
That the Case needs to be moved to the next level and be heard En Banc by all the Judges with a That Pro Se
litigant demands Oral Arguments and that a a poll be taken of each Judge as to how he votes and results be
made available to Pro Se Litigant.
The relief that should be and by LAW should be granted is a Default Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Janice
Wolk Grenadier and all requested in her Verified Complaint as compensation and anything else this court deems
Just. That a strong message needs to be and should be sent to the Banks, the Lawyers and Judge Binkema.
I, Janice Wolk Grenadier under my unlimited liability and Oath, proceeding in good faith, being of sound mind,
having first-hand knowledge, affirm, state, and declare that the facts contained herein are true, correct, and
complete and to the best of my ability, under penalty perjury, so help me, God.
Date: August 25, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
/S/_____________________________
Janice Wolk Grenadier
15 West Spring Street
13
Email: mary.zinsner@troutmansanders.com
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
Email: plee@mcguirewoods.com
Counsel for Bank of America, N.A
August 2, 2015
_____________________
Janice Wolk Grenadier
Plaintiff, Pro Se
14