No. _____________________________________                                                      IN THE                     ...
EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances involved. SaidMarch 17, 2011 letter which states in part:   ...
have moved to COVER-UP the criminal acts/civil violations leveled againstNewsome and/or citizen(s) of the United States in...
TERRORIST - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually                              organizes with other ...
Foreign Leaders/Countries are aware that the                    7.          United States Citizens DO NOT elect the Presid...
herein. See EXHIBIT “6” October 2010 PowerPoint               Presentation entitled, “Clean Out Congress 2010 – Americans ...
―Certificate of Live Birth,‖ President Obama should have a                  Birth Certificate. It is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE...
IMPORTANT TO NOTE      Citizens may want to know why the United States is LOSING the Wars/Battlesin IRAN, IRAQ, AFGHANISTA...
such  CORRUPTION   in     the                     United        States      Government          to   the      PUBLIC/WORLD...
See how ELATED citizens in the Middle East are to be FREE and out ofBONDAGE, that many were willing to DIE (i.e. sacrifice...
such attacks on Sherrod comes approximately 6 days AFTER Newsome‘s              July 13, 2010 email entitled, ― .S. PRESID...
Some people don‘t want to discuss racism as being a form of violence because it would reveal that they themselves are in f...
as if set forth in full herein. Newsome having gone PUBLIC and WORLDWIDE in           showing how the ―      WILLIE LYNCH‖...
surfacing and being released to the PUBLIC/WORLD as with that provided byWikiLeaks.       21.   While President Obama and ...
real change in policy on the ground, because                  policy is judged by deeds, not words.‖         See EXHIBIT “...
U.S. 156, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957); see id., at 173-177, 77               S.Ct. at 1136-1138 (Douglas, J., dis...
whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, the court MUST                       decide it, if it is brought before it....
Section 376 provided:                       ―. . The Supreme Court. . . shall have power to issue ALL writs NOT           ...
Extraordinary Writs this Court will address are: extraordinary writ of mandamus,mandamus/prohibition, habeas corpus – when...
q. Writ of SUPERVISORY CONTROL               r. Writ of Securitate Pacis               s. Extraterritorial Writs        31...
34.      Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionprovided in the EM/ORS and PFEW and their supportin...
De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1130, 325 U.S. 212, 89 L.Ed.               1566 (1945) - . . . petitioners applie...
In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993 (1989) Jessie               McDonald may well have abused his right to file pe...
Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171 (1996) – Power conferred              by All Writs Act extends, under appropria...
Majority and Minority Staff Director of the Senate Committee on             Appropriations             Member of United St...
WRONGS leveled against Newsome, members of her class and/or citizens of theUnited States.         38.    Newsome believes ...
already to aid in its jurisdiction and handling of this matter; rather than rely upon          what may be seen as dilator...
ABUSE OF DISCRETION, USURPATION OF JUDICIAL POWER/AUTHORITY,       LACK OF JURISDICTION in lower court actions to act, etc...
not, . . . court has NO license to ignore that requirement. Golden State                       Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U...
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)

5,146 views
5,072 views

Published on

04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)
"Response To March 17, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States' Letter."

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,146
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

04/22/11 - U.S. Supreme Court Filing (President Obama-StorAll Matter)

  1. 1. No. _____________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME PETITIONER V. STOR-ALL ALFRED, LLC; JUDGE JOHN ANDREW WEST/ HAMILTON COUNTY (OHIO) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 250 RESPONDENT(S) IN RE VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME ON PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RESPONSE TO MARCH 17, 2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ LETTER1 COMES NOW Petitioner, Vogel Denise Newsome – a/k/a Denise V. Newsome (― Newsome‖and/or ― Petitioner Newsome‖) – WITHOUT WAIVING HER RIGHTS and ARGUMENTS/ISSUESand DEFENSES raised and/or set forth in the October 9, 2010 “Emergency Motion to Stay;Emergency Motion for Enlargement of Time and Other Relief The United States Supreme CourtDeems Appropriate To Correct The Legal Wrongs/Injustices Reported Herein” (― EM/ORS‖),subsequent pleadings (i.e. which includes Petition for Extraordinary Writ [― PFEW‖]) submitted forfiling with the Supreme Court of the United States and provides this her Response To March 17,2011 Supreme Court of the United States‘ Letter (― RT031711SCL‖). This instant filing in responseto March 17, 2011 letter is submitted in that the information contained herein supports the 1 BOLDFACE, ITALICS, UNDERLINE, etc. added for emphasis. Page 1 of 96
  2. 2. EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances involved. SaidMarch 17, 2011 letter which states in part: "The above-entitled petition for an extraordinary writ seeking unspecified relief was received on March 17, 2011. Please inform this office by letter, as soon as possible, what type of extraordinary writ you are seeking to file, i.e. extraordinary writ of mandamus, mandamus/prohibition, habeas corpus. This office will retain all of the copies of the petition."See EXHIBIT “1” – March 17, 2011 Letter attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if setforth in full herein. In further support thereof, Newsome states the following: 1. This instant pleading is submitted in good faith and is not submitted for purposes of delay, harassment, hindering proceedings, embarrassment, obstructing the administration of justice, vexatious litigation, increasing the cost of litigation, etc. and is hereby filed to protect the rights of the Petitioner/Newsome and to provide the Supreme Court of the United States with a response to its March 17, 2011 letter. 2. This instant pleading and legal action has been timely brought in accordance with the Rules and statutes/laws governing said matters and in accordance with this Court‘s March 17, 2011 letter executed by Ruth Jones in the Clerk‘s Office on behalf of this Court and/or William K. Suter. 3. While this Court requested that Newsome provide a “letter” she believes the submittal of a response in form of pleading is appropriate and applicable out of concerns of the DILATORY tactics as well as further unlawful/illegal practices by members in this Court‘s Clerk‘s Office to attempt to USURP authority – i.e. little “Indians” wanting to be Chief and perform the role of the Justices of this Court; moreover, the DESPARATE attempts that may have been made by this Court in efforts to AID and ABET in the COVER-UP of the CRIMINAL and CIVIL WRONGS of its employees in efforts to shield/mask the ILLEGAL ANIMUS of President Barack Obama, his Administration and others leveled against Newsome. While it appears this Court may have been attempting to avoid being provided sufficient information to aid in the handling of this matter and advising Newsome that ―M otion for Leave‖ would now not be required, this instant RT031711SCL is hereto provided for purposes of clarifying and aiding this Court in the handling of this matter – i.e. providing information pertinent to March 17, 2011 request and reiterating pertinent information in the Motion for Leave Newsome previously provided this Court. 4. This instant RT031711SCL is also filed because Newsome believes it is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest for citizens as well as Foreign Leaders/Nations to see just what she has had to endure in seeking justice for the legal wrongs complained of in the Petition for Extraordinary Writ (― PFEW‖) and EM/ORS. Moreover, concerns that the Courts and United States Government may Page 2 of 96
  3. 3. have moved to COVER-UP the criminal acts/civil violations leveled againstNewsome and/or citizen(s) of the United States in RETALIATION of havingEXPOSED the CORRUPTION in the United States Government/GovernmentOfficials. 5. THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS, PUBLIC/WORLD NEEDS TOKNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AND WHAT TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST GROUP(S) APPEAR TO BE IN CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT – It is time for the Barack Obama Regime to GO – STEP DOWN!!As President Barack Obama has recently requested Foreign Leaders – i.e. forinstance, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Lybia’s Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi. See EXHIBITS “2” and “3” respectively– Articles regarding PresidentObama‘s request that Foreign Leaders step down attached hereto and incorporated byreference as if set forth in full herein. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 123 S.Ct. 1057 (U.S.,2003) - Crime of “coercion” is separate from extortion and involves the use of force or threat of force to restrict anothers freedom of action. TERRORISM: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments often for ideological or political reasons.2 DOMESTIC TERRORISM: Terrorism that occurs primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 USCA § 2331(5)] Terrorism that is carried out against one‘s own government or fellow citizens.3 INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: Terrorism that occurs primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or that transcends national boundaries by the means in which it is carried out, the people it is intended to intimidate, or the place where the perpetrators operate to seek asylum.4 TERRORIST: a) One who engage in acts or an act of terrorism. 5 b) Somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes.6 TERRORIZE: a) To fill or overpower, with terror; terrify. b) Coerce by intimidation or fear.7 c) Motivate somebody by violence to intimidate or coerce somebody with violence or the threat of violence.8 d) Make somebody very fearful to fill somebody with feelings of intense fear over a period of time.2 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Edition).3 Black‘s Law Dictionary (8th Edition).4 Id.5 The American Heritage. . .6 Encarta World English Dictionary (1999).7 The American Heritage. . .8 Encarta World. . . Page 3 of 96
  4. 4. TERRORIST - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities. (EMPHASIS ADDED). ACT OF TERRORISM, TERRORISM, TERRORIST ACT - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. RADICAL CELL, TERRORIST CELL - a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells usually dont know each other or the identity of their leadership." SUPREMACIST: 1) A person who believes in or advocates the supremacy of a particular group, esp. a racial group.9 2) One who believes that a certain group is or should be supreme. 10 3) Somebody who holds the view that a particular group is innately superior to others and therefore, is entitled to dominate them.11 SUPREMACY: A position of superiority or authority over all others.12/13 6. Foreign Leaders are NOT going to be deceived. They are aware of such SUPREMACIST and TERRORIST groups that are running the United States Government. For example, see the Interview Transcript with Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wherein said knowledge is made known - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39210911/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa.14 Knowledge confirming statements in Newsome‘s July 13, 2010 Email. 9 Random House Webster‘s Unabridged Dictionary (2nd Edition). 10 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Edition). 11 Encarta World English Dictionary (1999). 12 Encarta World. . . 13 This can be said of this instant lawsuit. If it had not been for Newsome‘s patience, diligence, research, etc. the UnitedStates Supreme Court as well as United States citizens would not be aware of the TERRORISTIC acts and CONSPIRACY that hasbeen orchestrated and carried out under the Leadership/Direction of Baker Donelson, its client (Liberty Mutual) and others againstAfrican-Americans and/or people of color; as well as smaller countries/nations. Why? Because this instant action will EXPOSE justhow subtle/elusive such SUPREMACIST/TERRORIST in not wanting to be detected and their intelligence/experience/expertise incovering up their RACIST/DISCRMINATORY/ PREJUDICIAL motives/agenda – i.e. exchanging the white hoods for business suitsand judicial robes, etc. to AVOID detection. See EXHIBIT “I” – DAVID DUKE/KU KLUX KLAN attached hereto and incorporatedby reference as if set forth in full herein. 14 Transcript: U.S. has hostility against our people, Ahmadinejad says . . .And-- all-- these years, they-- stood against our people. They continued hostilities, and they cooperated with all of ourenemies. President Obama said, "We are going to make it-- to make it up." And we welcomed that idea and position. I sent a messagefor him after his election. Of course, I received no answer. He just gave a general response. And that is not considered a response to mymessage. We think maybe President Obama wants to do something, but there are pressures-- pressure groups in the United States who donot allow him to do so. Even if he wants to do something, apparently there are certain groups who do not allow him to do it. Andrea Mitchell: Youre suggesting that President Obama— President Ahmadinejad: We think they are – Andrea Mitchell: --doesnt have-- doesnt have-- the-- as Commander in Chief and leader of the United States does not havethe decision-making power over what he does? President Ahmadinejad: Do you really think President Obama can do anything he wishes to? Page 4 of 96
  5. 5. Foreign Leaders/Countries are aware that the 7. United States Citizens DO NOT elect the President/Vice President of the United States – Electoral Colleges do. President Barack Obama was placed in the United States White House for DECEPTIVE purposes and all is ― COMING OUT IN THE WASH!!‖ 8. FOREIGN LEADERS/CITIZENS are NOT DECEIVED. They have been made aware of the WILLIE LYNCH practices and realize that the United States DOES NOT have the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X or Medgar Evers in the White House. NEITHER is that the likes of a NELSON MANDELA in the United States White House – i.e. Blacks WILLING/DETERMINED to put their lives on the line to assure FREEDOM and EQUALITY for ALL. Instead, products of the WILLIE LYNCH practices – United States President Barack Obama, United States Attorney General Eric Holder and President of the NAACP Benjamin Jealous - have been placed on DISPLAY as the NEW FACES of the African- American/Black male. See EXHIBIT “4” – Excerpt from the October PowerPoint Presentation entitled, “Clean Out Congress 2010 – Americans Take BACK Your Country/Government – Come November 2010 Vote OUT The Incumbents Career Politicians” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 9. It is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest for citizens and Foreign Nations/Leaders to see DEMOCRACY at work and see FIRST-HAND how the JUDICIAL system works in one of the MOST POWER COUNTRIES in the world. Moreover, how the Respondents and United States Government has resorted to CRIMINAL acts for purposes of OPPRESSION, THREATS, HARASSMENT, BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, etc. against Newsome and/or citizens who engage in protected activities – i.e. file complaints EXPOSING Human/Civil Rights violations, Discrimination, Retaliation, Terrorism/Supremacist/Racism, etc. Thank God, NATIONS – such as China and others - are coming out to address the HUMAN RIGHTS and CORRUPTION in the United States Government. Stands as Newsome requested in her October 2010 PowerPoint Presentation. See EXHIBIT “5” – 04/11/11 Article ― China Report Criticizes U.S. Human Rights Record‖ attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full Andrea Mitchell: Within-- within the— President Ahmadinejad: He does not— Andrea Mitchell: --the constructs of the United States Constitution. But what would you like to hear from President Obama?And what would you like to say to him? President Ahmadinejad: The Constitution is already on the [unintel]. What about the political scene? The reality on theground? Is he able to do everything he wishes to? Personally, its not true. There are different political group, there are a lo—different lobbyist pressure groups, and more important, there are Zionists there. We say, if he wants to do something, there arecertain groups who do not allow him to do so. Page 5 of 96
  6. 6. herein. See EXHIBIT “6” October 2010 PowerPoint Presentation entitled, “Clean Out Congress 2010 – Americans Take BACK Your Country/Government – Come November 2010 Vote OUT The Incumbents Career Politicians” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. It is about time for Foreign Countries/Leaders and their citizens let the United States know that they have had enough of its CORRUPTION and INTERFERENCE. See EXHIBIT “7” – Meetings with Foreign Leaders attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 10. United States President Barack Obama came out PUBLICLY andrequested that Foreign Leaders – such as for instance Egypt‘s President HosniMubarak and Libya‘s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi - STEP DOWN. See EXHIBITS“2” and “3” respectively attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forthin full herein. Now that Newsome has brought this legal action ADDRESSING THECORRUPTION, CONSPIRACIES and COVER-UP along with supporting evidenceas well as provided Exhibits/Appendices to sustain the EM/ORS and PFEW, ― WILLPRESIDENT OBAMA and HIS ADMINISTRATION STEP DOWN? 11. The United States has a President (Barack Obama) who has recentlycome under question regarding his CITIZENSHIP. Even under such SCRUTINY,President Obama CANNOT and or WILL NOT produce his ― Birth Certificate.‖Instead, information regarding a ― Certificate of LIVE Birth‖ NOT ― BIRTHCertificate‖ is released to the PUBLIC. Furthermore, it appears that President Obamais relying upon his Lawyers/Advisors (i.e. such as Baker, Donelson, Bearman,Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC (― Baker Donelson‖)) who have been shown to beCORRUPT!! See EXHIBIT “8” – regarding Birther issue attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Information which isPERTINENT and RELEVANT because it goes to the United States President BarackObama‘s and his Administration‘s CREDIBILITY!!! Which isCRUCIAL and of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest! Newsome believes it is also IMPORTANT for the PUBLIC/WORLD to see how Lawyers/Advisors for the United States President handle such issues. Newsome‘s experience with the likes of Baker Donelson and/or Respondents in this matter is that they NEVER produce ANY evidence to REBUT that is presented. ALL Respondents ever do is provide MERE ― WORDS‖ by way of rebuttal and ATTEMPT to MISLEAD the FACTFINDER away from the TRUTH!! See for instance EXHIBIT “9” – Obama‘s Response to Birther Issue attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. JUST WORDS – Surely if his Administration was willing to provide the Page 6 of 96
  7. 7. ―Certificate of Live Birth,‖ President Obama should have a Birth Certificate. It is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE that the CITIZENS of the United States want to see. 12. It is an INSULT and EMBARASSMENT that the United States Government has allowed such firms as Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC (― Baker Donelson‖) to assume KEY and CRITICAL positions for purposes of CREATING a CORRUPT and TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST government to INFLICT pain and suffering on its citizens and upon Foreign Nations WITHOUT just cause to do so. Baker Donelson acknowledging their people in PROMINENT positions as: Chief of Staff to the President of the United States; United States Secretary of State; United States Senate Majority Leader; Members of the United States Senate; Members of the United States House of Representatives; Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control for United States; Department of Treasury; Director of the Administrative Office of the United States; Chief Counsel, Acting Director, and Acting Deputy Director of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services within the United States Department of Homeland Security; Majority and Minority Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; Member of United States President‘s Domestic Policy Council; Counselor to the Deputy Secretary for the United States Department of HHS; Chief of Staff of the Supreme Court of the United States; Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the United States; Deputy under Secretary of International Trade for the United States Department of Commerce; Ambassador to Japan; Ambassador to Turkey; Ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman; Governor of Tennessee; Governor of Mississippi; Deputy Governor and Chief of Staff for the Governor of Tennessee; Commissioner of Finance & Administration (Chief Operating Officer) - State of Tennessee; Special Counselor to the Governor of Virginia; United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge; United States District Court Judges; United States Attorneys; Presidents of State and Local Bar AssociationsHowever, upon Newsome‘s going PUBLIC and WORLDWIDE, Baker Donelson hashad this information SCRUBBED from the Internet. However, NOT before Newsomecould RETRIEVE such information to sustain its DOMINENCE and CONTROL inHIGH POSITIONS – See EXHIBIT “10” attached hereto and incorporated byreference as if set forth in full herein.Baker Donelson being a law firm which has opposed and REPEATEDLY engaged incriminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome for purposes of destroying her life aswell as other citizens. Furthermore, it is an EMBARASSMENT and INSULT tothe United States when it has been shown to the PUBLIC and WORLD thatsuch a CORRUPT law firm as Baker Donelson, its client (LIBERTYMUTUAL INSURANCE) and those who conspire with them areREPEATEDLY giving a SHELLACKING and BEAT DOWN in lawsuitsinvolving Newsome that they have to RESORT to criminal acts – i.e.KIDNAPPING, BRIBERY, BLACKMAIL, EMBEZZLEMENT,EXTORTION, etc. in efforts of obtaining an UNDUE/UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL advantage for itself and those they represent and/or conspirewith. Page 7 of 96
  8. 8. IMPORTANT TO NOTE Citizens may want to know why the United States is LOSING the Wars/Battlesin IRAN, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN – Look at the law firm (i.e. Baker Donelson)Government Officials may receive counsel from. A Law Firm thatPROMOTES/INCORPORATES and SUPPORTS and IMPOSES Terrorist/Supremacist/Racist behavior on those they want to CONTROL and OPPOSES orSPEAK OUT AGAINST THEM such as Newsome. Recently a mother (Mary Tillman) of the late Football great (Pat Tillman) came out blasting the Obama Administration for retaining retired General Stanley McChrystal for Co-Chair of the ― Joining Forces‖ Program. See EXHIBIT “11” – Article regarding Mary Tillman attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. What this mother may not know, is that this is not ONLY President Barack Obama but his Lawyers/Advisors (i.e. Baker Donelson) at work. They throw out people and/or just merely move them to another post; however, the PERPETRATORS/CONSPIRATORS and CRIMINALS are ALWAYS basically the same regardless which ADMINISTRATION (Republican or Democrat) is in the White House. Baker Donelson and their COHORTS are ROOTED DEEPLY in the Government, Government Corruption, and the COVER-UP by the Government. So when CITIZENS/PUBLIC hear for instance that there is ― Change‖ in the Obama Administration, it is merely President Obama, Baker Donelson, etc. merely PROJECTING information for DECEPTIVE purposes; however, the CRIMINAL/ TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST Regime players are still in office. See for instance EXHIBIT “12” – Change in Administration attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. However, in doing research you may find that ALL if not the MAJORITY are ASSOCIATED with Baker Donelson. Citizens may want to know why the ECONOMY of the United States is so bad –Yes, look at who is sitting in the TOP/HEAD seat – BAKER DONELSON!!Moreover, who may ACTUALLY be running the United States Government, Banks,Real Estate, etc. See EXHIBIT “13” – The Hands Behind Government Operationsattached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Now thislaw firm has SCRUBBED information from the INTERNET as it attempts to TUCK-TAIL and HIDE!! Well Newsome has News - - BUSTED. . . BUSTED. . . BUSTED.Just as such law firms as Baker Donelson and those they have CONSPIRED with havefelt at LIBERTY to have information POSTED on the INTERNET regarding Newsomeknown to be false, obtained and provided for CRIMINAL INTENT, MALICIOUSNESSand DAMAGING; Newsome has taken the LIBERTY to GO PUBLIC and EXPOSE Page 8 of 96
  9. 9. such CORRUPTION in the United States Government to the PUBLIC/WORLD/MEDIA at large. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 110 S.Ct. 2695 (1990) - Where statement of ―opinion‖ on matter of public concern reasonably implies false and defamatory facts involving private figure, plaintiff must show that false implications were made with some level of fault to support recovery. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Paul proclaimed his innocence to . . . leaders. When is it wise to make a public response to false accusations, and when should we just let them go? In the case of Paul, the gospel would have been discredited if he had not spoken up. His circumstances made him look like a criminal, and he had no history with these leaders to expect them to assume otherwise without a proper defense. If we have been publicly slandered by credible sources, we should probably make a public response. Otherwise our own witness will be compromised. . . Jesus warned us that some people will say all manner of evil against us falsely, so we should not be surprised when it happens. But we do need to exercise wisdom when we become aware of it.15 13. United States President Abraham Lincoln issued and executed an EXECUTIVE ORDER known as the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION on or about January 1, 1863 – approximately 148 YEARS Ago – which ORDERED the FREEDOM of Slaves. Nevertheless, 148 years later, the United States still have the likes of Respondents and those who conspire with them DETERMINED to take Newsome and members of her class BACK into SLAVERY!!! However, as recent NEWS has shown and FOREIGN NATIONS have PROVEN, the ERA of OPPRESSION by such TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST Regimes (i.e. as the United States) is OVER!!! - - SAY, “NO MORE!!” Foreign Nations/Citizens making it KNOWN they do NOT want OUTSIDE interference from the United States – THANK GOD!!!!! How can a HYPOCRITICAL country like the United States minister to the needs of those who have been OPPRESSED, ENSLAVED and in BONDAGE, when the United States itself engage in such CRIMINAL and CORRUPTION against its citizens. FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST – THANK GOD ALMIGHTY WE ARE FREE AT LAST!!! 15 Upheld By God‖ - 2009-2010 Standard Lesson Commentary (King James Version) - August 29, 2010 Lesson Entitled: ― Let’s Talk It Over.‖Subtitle: ― Page 9 of 96
  10. 10. See how ELATED citizens in the Middle East are to be FREE and out ofBONDAGE, that many were willing to DIE (i.e. sacrifice their lives) rather thanremain ENSLAVED to a Terrorist/Supremacist regime. See EXHIBIT ―14 – ‖Photos of Citizens in the Middle East Celebrating their VICTORY attached heretoand incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. It may have only takenseeing the SUCCESS on November 2, 2010 in the United States and theencouragement from a Computer Website Executive, to take up the MANTLE andLEAD/ORGANIZE the TAKE OVER!!! 14. Great SACRIFICES have been made by people such as―Whistleblower‖ Army Spc. Bradley Manning - See EXHIBIT “15” attached heretoand incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein - who has risked his life toREPORT and EXPOSE the CORRUPTION and CRIMINAL/CIVIL violations of theUnited States because he want the PUBLIC to know the TRUTH! COURAGEOUSacts by a citizen it appears who could NOT look the other way and allowINJUSTICES, CORRUPTION and CRIMES to continue WITHOUT making the CHINA is correct in SPEAKING out andPUBLIC AWARE!SHINING THE LIGHT on the United States and itsHYPROCRISY!! 15. Great SACRIFICES have been made by people as WIKILEAKS‘Julian Assange - See EXHIBIT “16” attached hereto and incorporated by referenceas if set forth in full herein - who has come under attacks for releasing suchCRITICAL, DAMAGING and PERTINENT information to the PUBLIC/WORLDregarding the United States CORRUPTION and COVER-UP of CRIMINAL/CIVILWRONGS. 16. There are approximately TWO United States President (i.e. AbrahamLincoln and John F. Kennedy) who were ASSASSINATED because of the likes ofRespondents, Obama Administration, etc. and others who did not want to moveFORWARD and INSISTED on keeping a RACE of people OPPRESSED and inBONDAGE! 17. PROMINATE Civil Rights Leaders (i.e. Medgar Evers, Malcolm X,Martin Luther King Jr.) were ASSASSINATED because of the likes of Respondents,Obama Administration, etc. and others who did not want to move FORWARD andINSISTED on keeping a RACE of people OPPRESSED and in BONDAGE! 18. As with Newsome, there are other African American women whohave come under attack for speaking out and/or exercising Rights secured under theConstitution and/or laws of the United States. For instance:a. In July 2010, Shirley Sherrod (― Sherrod‖) was UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY removed from her job – i.e. Obama Administration requesting that she RESIGN. See EXHIBIT “17” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. It does NOT look good to the PUBLIC/WORLD when Page 10 of 96
  11. 11. such attacks on Sherrod comes approximately 6 days AFTER Newsome‘s July 13, 2010 email entitled, ― .S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The ―U Downfall/Doom of the Obama Administration – Corruption/Conspiracy/Cover- Up/Criminal Acts Made Public‖ - which was received by United States President Barack Obama and those in his Administration (i.e. like Shirley Sherrod‘s boss – Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack) – See EXHIBIT “18” – Excerpt of the July 13, 2010 email evidencing Thomas Vilsack as a RECIPIENT. Sherrod who is an ACTIVIST and a product of an HBCU (Historical Black College and University) – Albany State University. Newsome being an ACTIVIST and product of HBCU – Florida A&M University. b. In November 2010, Velma Hart was FIRED/TERMINATED/LAID OFF from her job as Chief Financial Officer for American Veterans AFTER being TELEVISED questioning President Obama stating for instance: ―Quite frankly, I’m exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the man for change I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I‘ve been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I‘m one of those people and I‘m waiting, sir, I‘m waiting. I don‘t feel it yet . . .‖ See EXHIBIT “19” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Newsome knew that based upon the MEDIA coverage, that Hart’s employment days were NUMBERED. Sure enough ― acting TRUE to form‖ Hart may have been FIRED/TERMINATED/LAID OFF as a direct and proximate result of exercising her First Amendment Rights. c. Clearly under the Willie Lynch Practices one can see the concerns such OPPRESSORS had regarding the African-American/Black Woman. Such Oppressors thought that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. was a problem/threat so the United States Government was pleased with such Civil Rights Leaders’ assassinations. Now they are finding out that Newsome and a number of other African-American/Black women are NOT remaining silent and giving into the WILLIE LYNCH practices. 19. Newsome uses not only her own PERSONAL experiences but those of citizens such as ― Carl Brandon‖ and ― Omar Thornton‖ who were targeted and subjected to DISCRIMINATORY practices and CONSPIRACIES for purposes of forcing and driving them to commit criminal acts – See EXHIBITS “20” (Carl Brandon) and “21” (Omar Thornton)16 attached hereto and incorporated by reference 16 http://www.omaha.com/article/20100803/NEWS/708039865/1031; http://www.examiner.com/x-48240-NY-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2010m8d8-Possibility-that-Omar-Thornton-did-not-act-alone Using the following excerpts: Page 11 of 96
  12. 12. Some people don‘t want to discuss racism as being a form of violence because it would reveal that they themselves are in factextremely violent and in denial about it. Omar Thornton‘s incident has a host of websites spewing hate talk toward African-Americans. Hartford Distributors mayhave used racism and gradually managed to kill Omar Thornton mentally and emotionally before the killing spree via attrition. JessicaAnne Brocuglio, an ex-girlfriend of Omar Thornton, comes forward with character evidence: He always felt like he was being discriminated (against) because he was black[.]‖ ― Basically they wouldn’t give him payraises. He never felt like they accepted him as a hard working person.‖ This statement corroborates with what Kristi Hannah, Omar Thornton‘s fiancée before his death, had been telling theManchester Police Department about Hartford Distributors treating him like a persona non grata. Plus, a fellow co-worker who was employed with Omar Thornton at Hartford Distributors has come forward stating that hehad seen the racist taunts: ― Stuff on walls. Racist comments. I saw with my own eyes.‖ More importantly, the fellow co-worker saidMr. Thornton was hired as a truck driver; yet, he was assigned to loading boxes in the warehouse. Mr. Thornton had to fight to getbehind the wheel. The co-worker then states that Hartford Distributors are lying and the evidence is in Omar‘s cell phone. Thesestatements are serious and they are not based upon speculation. This places the co-worker in a position to be called as a key witness toracism within Hartford Distributors. Although the co-worker is no longer under the employ of Hartford Distributors, he has witnessedthese incidents first-hand. These statements make it appear as if Hartford Distributors is deliberately being obtuse to shield themselvesfrom potential liability. As Marcellus said in William Shakespeare‘s play ― Hamlet,‖ ― [s]omething is rotten in the state of Denmark.‖Thus far, the answers provided by Hartford Distributors just rubs me the wrong way. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBNP73m9cp2g6qFtWxCbJH6IAD3gD9HEV71O0 But underneath, Thornton seethed with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage Tuesday inwhich the Connecticut man killed eight and wounded two others at his job at Hartford Distributors in Manchester before killing himself. "I know what pushed him over the edge was all the racial stuff that was happening at work," said his girlfriend, KristiHannah. Thornton, a black man, said as much in a chilling, four-minute 911 call. "You probably want to know the reason why I shot this place up," Thornton said in a recording released Thursday. "Thisplace is a racist place. Theyre treating me bad over here. And treat all other black employees bad over here, too. So I took it to myown hands and handled the problem. I wish I could have got more of the people." . . . One time Thornton had a confrontation with a white co-worker who used a racial slur against him, she said. Thornton changedjobs a few times because he was not getting raises, Brocuglio said. "Im sick of having to quit jobs and get another job because they cant accept me," she said he told her. . . . Brocuglios sister, Toni, said Thornton would come home and say co-workers called him racial slurs. He was also upset bycomments made by passers-by about the interracial couple, she said. "He just didnt understand why people had so much hatred in their lives," Toni Brocuglio said. . . . But Hannah said he showed her cell phone photos of racist graffiti in the bathroom at the beer company and overheard acompany official using a racial epithet in reference to him, but a union representative did not return his phone calls. Police said theyrecovered the phone and forensics experts would examine it. and Port Gibson Shooter (Carl Brandon) complained of: http://workplaceviolence.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html Apparently, the deadly shooting rampage was the culmination of years of anger and frustration over what the shooter believedto be false accusations of sexual harassment. "I dont know how you can consider me a danger. I was made a criminal through thesystem. . . http://www.topix.com/forum/city/port-gibson-ms/T0RUM1ECTB788O4HN ― would put Carl Brandon as a model from my town. I think he was one of the more intellegent and well manners persons in Ithe class. i cannot imagine this guy walking up one morning to decide that he want to destroy his life and others.‖ – Sarah Kelly(Chicago, IL) ―Some time a person try to walk away from a problem, but there are people in this world that want let them do that. Thisman had left his job and move on, but that was not good enough. They had to call his job and tell them what happened 9 years ago,and got this man fired. I hate that he let the devil take over him at the time, but I do understand . . . I hope we can learn something fromthis tragedy.‖ – Shelly Jones (Nashville, TN) ― had lost his job because someone said he had harassed them. He lost his reputation and the respect of some. When he Hetried to move on some vindictive, vicious persons went to his next job and scandalized him. He fought through every legal avenueavailable to him and found no justice.‖ – Cassandra Cook Butler (AOL) Page 12 of 96
  13. 13. as if set forth in full herein. Newsome having gone PUBLIC and WORLDWIDE in showing how the ― WILLIE LYNCH‖17 practices are implemented by the likes of Respondents for purposes of breaking down Newsome and those of her Race for purposes of keeping them OPPRESSED, ENSLAVED and in BONDAGE! Moreover, to drive CITIZENS into committing criminal acts as a direct and proximate result of CONSPIRACIES involving racially motivated violations of the laws. See EXHIBIT “22” – Willie Lynch document attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. So NO foreign citizens in the MIDDLE EAST can clearly see from documentation and EVIDENCE provided them that the “Obama Administration” is a SHAM – i.e. CORRUPT as well as the United States JUDICIAL SYSTEM. Clearly the United States can be NO role model in that it engages in CORRUPTION and the COVER-UP of discriminatory practices, human/civil rights violations, obstruction of justice, and other criminal/civil wrongs leveled against African-Americans and/or people of color. 20. It was IMPORTANT to Newsome that the PUBLIC/WORLD saw just how the First ALLEDGED African-American President (Barack Obama) ABANDONED his Pastor Jeremiah Wright when EXCERPTS of his sermons (i.e. SIMILAR practice as that used on Shirley Sherrod) were taken OUT-OF- CONTEXT to makeWright appear as CRAZY, LUNATIC, and HOSTILE. Moreover, how the WHITE candidates (i.e. Hilary Clinton – now Secretary of State and Sarah Palin who was the Vice Presidential Candidate for Republican Party) wanted to paint Wright as a TERRORIST!! IMPORTANT TO NOTE: It was a good thing that Army Spc. Bradley Manning released information regarding the United States Government‘s CORRUPTION and COVER-UP of crimes. Moreover, WikiLeaks sharing information with the WORLD – then the coming of a release of ―U.S.: 1940s STD an Article on or about October 1, 2010, entitled, Experiments ―Clearly Unethical‖ SUPPORTING the United States Government‘s role in UNETHICAL practices – i.e. as that of the Tuskegee Test which were INFLICTED on African-American men. See EXHIBIT “23” - “U.S.: 1940s STD Experiments “Clearly Unethical” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. So while the United States was trying to portray the preacher (Jeremiah Wright) as being CRAZY, TERRORIST, etc. and taking EXCERPTS from sermons to DECEIVE the Nation – LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!!! The TRUTH is 17 ― my bag here, I have a foolproof [sic] method of controlling your black slaves. I guarantee every one of you that if Ininstalled correctly it will control the slaves for at least 300 years. . . Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. . . I use fear,distrust and envy for control. . . The Breaking Process of the African Woman Take the female and run a series of tests on her to see if she will submit to your desires willingly. TEST her in every way,because she is the most important factor for good economics. If she shows any sign of resistance in submitting completely to your will,do not hesitate to use the bull whip on her to extract the last bit of resistance out of her. Take care not to kill her, for in doing so, youspoil good economic. . . .‖ Page 13 of 96
  14. 14. surfacing and being released to the PUBLIC/WORLD as with that provided byWikiLeaks. 21. While President Obama and his Administration are attempting tomake it APPEAR that they were for the citizens of Egypt and other Foreign Nationstaking back their Government, they were NOT. President Obama and hisAdministration CLEARLY are in FEAR now because they realize that the NEWForeign Governments being established by those who have been OPPRESSED,ENSLAVED and in BONDAGE for DECADES (i.e. some over 40 Years) will NOTallow the United States to DICTATE and continue to use their POWER toTERRORIZE them as they have done to Newsome and others that SPEAK OUT andEXPOSE CORRUPTION, INJUSTICES, RACISM, DISCRIMINATION, etc.Newsome believes it is President Obama‘s time to take his OWN advice: STEP DOWN FROM OFFICE – i.e. in that he has known of the CORRUPTION and COVER-UP of crimes and civil wrongs leveled not only against Newsome but those of other citizens of the United States that were TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY brought to his attention; however, made a CONSCIOUS and WILLING decision to look the other way. Leaving to question as with IMPEACHED President Nixon – WHAT did President Barack Obama know and WHEN did he know it? Newsome believesit is time for President Obama and his TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST Regime to LEAVE the White House. Therefore, Newsome has INITIATED the appropriate legal action(s) – Petition for EXTRAORDINARY WRIT with the Supreme Court of the United States for the CORRECTION and EXPOSURE of practices OUTLAWED HUNDREDS of Years Ago. 22. President Obama‘s/United States Government‘s RECENTLY comingout and speaking out as though they were for the citizens in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen,Syria, Libya, etc. and other Foreign citizens taking ON/BACK their government is aFARCE and the Foreign Citizens/Leaders know it. ForeignLeaders/Media/Citizens may be aware of the attacks on Newsome because she hasreleased information to be shared as to the OPPRESSIVE and ENSLAVEMENTpractices of the United States Government, employers and those who have conspiredwith them to destroy her life. For instance leaders in EGYPT knew thatplacing President Obama in the White House was a FRONT and merelyDECEPTIVE acts to mislead Foreign Countries, their Leaders andCitizens: Muhammad Habib, first deputy to the general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: He said ― US Administration employs all cards to serve its own interests.” the that the speech that Obama intends to deliver in Egypt is “of no value.‖ He added: ― Statements and speeches must be associated with, or preceded by Page 14 of 96
  15. 15. real change in policy on the ground, because policy is judged by deeds, not words.‖ See EXHIBIT “24”“EGYPT‘S Opposition Leaders Sound Off On - Upcoming Obama Visit” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. As well as the following information at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/06/03/v-print/69398/obama-to-lay- out-vision-of-muslim.html . . . Bin Laden said that Obamas approach to the Muslim world was no different from that of Bush18, whose policies — from the invasion of Iraq to the use of some interrogation methods widely considered torture — convinced many Muslims that the United States had launched a war on Islam. . . However, Gamal Eid, the head of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, said he planned to decline the invitation. The Israeli ambassador to he didnt want to be in the same Egypt also is invited, and Eid said room as a representative of what he called a "criminal" government. See EXHIBIT “25” – “Obama to Lay Out Vision of Muslim’s World’s Future” Article attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 23. This Court has retained copies of the PFEW in this action as well as the $300 Filing Fee submitted. Newsome being a paying litigant in that it appeared to her that this Court may have attempted to try and get her to come before it in the “In Forma Pauperis” (― IFP‖) status to avoid having to address the issues presented therein – i.e. in that IFP pleadings/filings do NOT appear to be subject to the same standard of review as that of PAYING litigants. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993 (1989) Jessie McDonald may well have abused his right to file petitions in this Court without payment of the docketing fee; the Courts order documents that fact. I do not agree, however, that he poses such a threat to the orderly administration of justice that we should embark on the unprecedented and dangerous course the Court charts today. . . . I am most concerned, however, that if, as I fear, we continue on the course we chart today, we will end by closing our doors to a litigant with a meritorious claim. It is rare, but it does happen on occasion that we grant review and even decide in favor of a litigant who previously had presented multiple unsuccessful*188 petitions on the same issue. See, e.g., Chessman v. Teets, 354 18 PUBLIC/WORLD needs to know because President Obama may be relying upon the advice of the same counsel and/oradvisors used by President Bush. Page 15 of 96
  16. 16. U.S. 156, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957); see id., at 173-177, 77 S.Ct. at 1136-1138 (Douglas, J., dissenting). "Petitioner is no stranger to us. Since 1971, he has made 73 separate filings with the Court, not including this petition, which is his eighth so far this Term. These include 4 appeals, 33 petitions for certiorari, 99 petitions for extraordinary writs, 7 applications for stay and other injunctive relief, and 10 petitions for rehearing." Id. pp. 994- 995. "But paupers filing pro se petitions are not subject to the financial considerations - filing fees and attorneys fees - that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions." Id. p. 996. The Supreme Court (even after all of McDonalds filings) did not close the door to McDonald. A litigant who is identified as filing 73 separate filings in a one-year period; however, ruled, "Petitioner remains free under the present order to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ, if he qualifies under the Courts Rule 46 and does not similarly abuse that privilege." Id. p. 996. 24. The EMERGENCY relief sought through EM/ORS and PFEW is thatwhich is required to deter and mitigate damages sustained by Newsome. Moreover,is relief that should have been sought by the appropriate Government Agency(s) towhich matters were brought; however, failed to perform ministerial duties owedNewsome in RETALIATION of her having brought legal action and/or knowledge ofher engagement in protected activities – i.e. active role in conspiracy(s) leveledagainst Newsome. 25. Newsome would be prejudiced by this action should this Court denyher EQUAL protection of the laws, EQUAL privileges and immunities of the lawsand DUE PROCESS of laws in the handling of this instant RT031711SCL to whichit supports the PFEW and EM/ORS submitted to the attention of this Court for filing.Therefore, this instant RT031711SCL is being filed to preserve the rights, argumentsand defenses asserted by Newsome under the statutes/laws governing said matters. 26. For the sake from having to reargue issues/arguments/defenses andlegal conclusions, Newsome incorporates by reference ― PFEW‖ and ― EM/ORS‖ aswell as their supporting Appendices/Exhibits submitted to the Supreme Court of theUnited States for filing. 27. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsprovided herein as well as in ― PFEW‖ and ― EM/ORS‖ will sustain that the SupremeCourt of the United States MUST take jurisdiction in this matter; CANNOT pass it bybecause it may be doubtful; MUST decide the issues/questions presented before thisCourt; and CANNOT decline the exercise of jurisdiction to which Newsome isentitled: Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 165, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) - [HN1] The United States Supreme Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it MUST take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary CANNOT, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. The court CANNOT pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with Page 16 of 96
  17. 17. whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, the court MUST decide it, if it is brought before it. The court has NO more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be TREASON to the Constitution. Questions may occur which the court would gladly avoid, but the court CANNOT avoid them. All the court can do is to exercise its best judgment, and conscientiously perform its duty. for to do so would be TREASON to the Constitution. Therefore, Newsome seeks this Court‘s addressing issues/questions presented it and to perform the duties owed her as well as the citizens of the United States. I. ALL WRITS ACT Newsome hopes that the Supreme Court of the United States understands that due to theEXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances involved in thiscase, this instant RT031711SCL is necessary in response its March 17, 2011 letter to her. Newsomehopes that there is sufficient and adequate information contained herein as well as in EM/ORS,PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices to end concerns of what she believes may beDILATORY practices by this Court in light of the DAMAGING information contained herein whichactually has LED back to its DOORSTEPS due to its FAILURE to act when Newsome first begancoming to this Court to address such HIDEOUS criminal behavior and civil violations. Due to theextenuating factors involved and the impact such crimes/civil wrongs have had not only on Newsomebut the PUBLIC/WORLD at large, she request that her Petition for Extraordinary Writ be filed andthis Court issue the required legal process on Respondents. Newsome believes that there is sufficientRespondent information – i.e. names, addresses, etc. - available in this EM/ORS, PFEW and theirsupporting Exhibits/Appendices to move forward. Even if not, this Court has the proper legal toolsand resources to retain information to avoid any further delays in the PROSECUTION andADMINISTRATION of justice. 28 USC § 1651 Writs: (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue ALL writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. Page 17 of 96
  18. 18. Section 376 provided: ―. . The Supreme Court. . . shall have power to issue ALL writs NOT . specifically provided for by statute, which may be NECESSARY for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.‖ Ex parte Fahey, 67 S.Ct. 1558 (1947) - United States Supreme Court has power to issue extraordinary writs . . .but such remedies should be resorted to only where appeal is clearly inadequate, and they are reserved for really extraordinary causes. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition): All Writs Act – A federal statute that gives the U.S. Supreme Court and all courts established by Congress the power to issue writs in aid of their jurisdiction and in conformity with the usages and principles of law. Black’s Law Dictionary – Second Pocket Edition: Writ: A court‘s written order, in the name of a state or other competent legal authority, commanding the addressee to do or refrain from doing some specified act. Extraordinary Writ: A writ issued by a court exercising unusual or discretionary power. Original Writ: A writ commencing an action and directing the defendant to appear and answer. U.S. v. Denedo, 129 S.Ct. 2213 (U.S.,2009) - Under the All Writs Act, a courts power to issue any form of relief, extraordinary or otherwise, is contingent on that courts subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comn, 125 S.Ct. 2 (U.S.,2004) - Authority granted to courts under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist, sitting as single Justice.) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comn, 125 S.Ct. 2 (U.S.,2004) - Authority granted to courts under the All Writs Act is appropriately exercised only: (1) when necessary or appropriate in aid of courts jurisdiction; and (2) when legal rights at issue are indisputably clear. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist, sitting as single Justice.) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that in compliance with the March 17, 2011 Letter issued by thisCourt, and in furtherance of claims addressed in EM/ORS, PFEW and subsequent filings to saidpleadings, Newsome states: 28. Her concerns as to what she believes to be this Court‘s attempt to MISLEAD her and/or MISGUIDE her into thinking that the ONLY type of Page 18 of 96
  19. 19. Extraordinary Writs this Court will address are: extraordinary writ of mandamus,mandamus/prohibition, habeas corpus – when it IS NOT!! 29. Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude that theEM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices clearly supports andprovides this Court with ADEQUATE and SUFFICIENT information that it couldhave concluded that Newsome seeks to bring legal actions under the ― ALL WRITSACT‖ and/or applicable statutes/laws governing claims addressed in EM/ORS andPFEW. Furthermore, based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions, thisCourt having the DUTY and OBLIGATION to correct any/all miscarriage of justicereported through this action and/or known to it. 30. Based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusion provided inNewsome‘s EM/ORS and PFEW, she seeks legal relief under the All Writs Act andany/all applicable statutes/laws to correct legal wrongs addressed and/or known tothis Court which may include the following (i.e. however, is not limited to saidlisting): a. Original Writ b. Writ of Conspiracy c. Writ of Course d. Writ of Detinue e. Writ of Entry f. Writ of Exigi Facias g. Writ of Formedon h. Writ of Injunction i. Writ of Mandamus j. Writ of Possession k. Writ of Praecipe l. Writ of Protection m. Writ of Recaption n. Writ of Prohibition o. Writ of Review p. Writ of Supersedeas Page 19 of 96
  20. 20. q. Writ of SUPERVISORY CONTROL r. Writ of Securitate Pacis s. Extraterritorial Writs 31. Newsome believes based upon the facts, evidence and legalconclusions, that the record evidence will sustain that CRITICAL and EXIGENTcircumstances exist to support her EM/ORS and PFEW; moreover, relief under the― Writs Act.‖ Furthermore, Newsome‘s EM/ORS and PFEW sets forth evidence Alland facts that authority under the ― Writs Act‖ is warranted to aid in this Court‘s AllJurisdiction and that the Legal Rights at ISSUE are INDISPUTABLY clear. Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Com’n, 125 S.Ct. 2, 542 U.S. 1305, 159 L.Ed.2d 805 (2004) – Authority granted to courts under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most CRITICAL and EXIGENT circumstances (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist). Authority granted under the All Rights Act is appropriately exercised only: (1) when necessary or appropriate to aid in court‘s jurisdiction; and (2) when legal rights at ISSUE are INDISPUTABLY clear. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist). Id. 32. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsprovided in EM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices willsustain that the Writs sought as well as other applicable relief KNOWN to this Courtto correct the legal wrongs reported will sustain LEGISLATIVELY approved sourcesof PROCEDURAL INSTRUMENTS designed to achieve RATIONAL ends of lawand may be used by this Court in ISSUING the APPROPRIATE Orders to assist it inconducting FACTUAL INQUIRIES/INVESTIGATIONS into the Issues/Claims setforth in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices. Harris v. Nelson, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 394 U.S. 286, 22 L.Ed.2d 281, rehearing denied 89 S.Ct. 1623, 394 U.S. 1025, 23 L.Ed. 50 (1969) – All Writs Act serves as LEGISLATIVELY approved source of procedural instruments designed to achieve rational ends of law and may be relied on by courts in issuing order appropriate to ASSIST them in CONDUCTING FACTUAL INQUIRIES. 33. The Supreme Court of the United States have statutory authority aswell as inherent power to execute the applicable Orders that are necessary toCORRECT the legal wrongs/injustices and prevent interference/obstruction of justiceto the implementation of said Orders sought. U.S. v. Wallace, 218 F.Supp. 290 (1963) – The courts of the United States have statutory authority as well as inherent power to enter such orders as may be necessary to effectuate their lawful decrees and to prevent interference with, and obstruction to, their implementation. Page 20 of 96
  21. 21. 34. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionprovided in the EM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices willsustain that this matter is of ― PUBLIC IMPORTANCE‖ and is ofPUBLIC/NATIONAL security in that it supports the COVER-UP of Respondents,President Barack Obama, his Administration and the United States Government ofCORRUPTION, CRIMINAL/CIVIL VIOLATIONS and TERRORIST/RACIST/SUPREMACIST practices. Furthermore, the record evidence will SUPPORT aWILLFUL disregard of legislative policy, rules of the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, which are a DIRECT and PROXIMATE RESULT of the SERIOUSHARDSHIP and LEGAL INJUSTICES leveled against Newsome, members of herclass and/or citizens of the United States. This instant action has been brought seeking the filing of ORIGINALACTION and issuance of EXTRAORDINARY WRITS because of the extraordinarycircumstances sustained by the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in theEM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices – for purposes ofconfining the inferior courts and Administrative Agency(s) addressed, to the lawfulexercise of their prescribed jurisdiction and to compel them to exercise authorityMANDATORILY required and GOVERNED by statutes/laws. Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.Ed 728, 135 U.S. App.Dc. 160 on remand 259 A.2d 592 (1969) – Among the factors to be considered in determining whether prerogative writs should issue are whether the matter is of ― PUBLIC IMPORTANCE,” whether the policy against piecemeal appeals would be frustrated, whether there has been a WILLFUL disregard of legislative policy, or of rules of the higher court, and whether refusal to issue the writ may work a serious hardship on the parties. Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84 S.Ct. 769, 376 U.S. 240, 11 L.Ed.2d 674 (1964) – Extraordinary writs are reserved for really extraordinary causes, and then only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or compel it to exercise its authority when it is duty to do so. 35. Newsome seeks any and all applicable relief KNOWN to the SupremeCourt of the United States to correct the injustices/miscarriages of justice addressedherein as well as in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices.Newsome believes that the record evidence will further support Orders entered byjudges with KNOWLEDGE that they lacked jurisdiction to act in legalaction/lawsuit. Anderson v. McLaughlin, 263 F.2d 723 (1959) – (n.2) Authority conferred by statute authorizing courts to issue ALL writs necessary is NOT confined to issuance of writs in aid of jurisdiction already acquired by appeal but extends to those cases which are within court‘s appellate jurisdiction although NO appeal has yet been perfected. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S.21, 25, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185. (n. 3) Extraordinary writs authorized to be issued by courts established by Act of Congress should be issued only under unique and compelling circumstances. Page 21 of 96
  22. 22. De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1130, 325 U.S. 212, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945) - . . . petitioners applied to this court for certiorari under § 262. That section provides in part: “The Supreme Court. . . shall have power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” . . . When Congress withholds interlocutory reviews, § 262 can, of course be availed to correct a mere error in the exercise of conceded judicial power. But when a court has no judicial power to do what it purports to do – when its action is not mere error or usurpation of power – the situation falls precisely within the allowable use of § 262. We proceed, therefore, to inquire whether the . . . Court is empowered to enter the order under attack. Also see, 80th Congress House Report No. 308. 36. Newsome believes it is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest forcitizens to see just how the courts in the United States operate and COVER-UP theCORRUPTION of the United States Government/Government Officials, BIGcorporations, BIG law firms, BIG insurance companies, SPECIAL INTERESTgroups, their lobbyists, etc. who engage in criminal/civil wrongs leveled againstcitizens such as Newsome who OPPOSE such unlawful/illegal/unethical practices asthat raised and addressed in EM/ORS, PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices.In fact, it is IMPORTANT for the PUBLIC/WORLD to see just how far the UnitedStates Government, WHITE employers, their lawyers, their insurance companies, etc.will go to POST FALSE, MALICIOUS and MISLEADING information known to bereceived through criminal acts on the INTERNET for purposes of destroyingcitizens‘ (i.e. such as Newsome) lives. See EXHIBIT “26” – Google Informationregarding Newsome attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth infull herein. Furthermore, how the Government and WHITE employers engage incriminal/civil wrongs against citizens (i.e. such as Newsome) to see that the ― DOORSOF THE COURTS‖ are closed to citizens who have VALID and MERITABLEclaims. Either engaging and/or condoning the criminal acts of judges/justices whoAID and ABET in the COVER-UP of CORRUPTION and CRIMINAL behavior. InNewsome case, the United States Government and White employers CONSPIRED toplace information on the INTERNET they knew to be FALSE, MALICIOUS andMISLEADING for purposes of having Newsome BLACKLISTED/BLACKBALLED and creating situation to see that Newsome is NEVER employablein EFFORTS of keeping the CRIMINAL/TERRORIST/ RACIST/SUPREMACISTpractices of WHITE employers OUT of the eyes/knowledge of CITIZENS and/orPUBLIC/WORLD. Weber v. Henderson, 275 F.Supp.2d 616 (2003) – Postal employee who filed fifteen lawsuits in nine years against United States Postal Service (USPS), stemming from his removal from full-service carrier duty, failed to raise claims in any action relating to events at issue that were neither meritless nor frivolous, and thus any further pro se pleadings submitted by employee on same basis would be PROPERLY reviewed under ALL WRITS ACT . . . Page 22 of 96
  23. 23. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993 (1989) Jessie McDonald may well have abused his right to file petitions in this Court without payment of the docketing fee; the Courts order documents that fact. I do not agree, however, that he poses such a threat to the orderly administration of justice that we should embark on the unprecedented and dangerous course the Court charts today. . . . I am most concerned, however, that if, as I fear, we continue on the course we chart today, we will end by closing our doors to a litigant with a meritorious claim. It is rare, but it does happen on occasion that we grant review and even decide in favor of a litigant who previously had presented multiple unsuccessful*188 petitions on the same issue. See, e.g., Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957); see id., at 173-177, 77 S.Ct. at 1136-1138 (Douglas, J., dissenting). "Petitioner is no stranger to us. Since 1971, he has made 73 separate filings with the Court, not including this petition, which is his eighth so far this Term. These include 4 appeals, 33 petitions for certiorari, 99 petitions for extraordinary writs, 7 applications for stay and other injunctive relief, and 10 petitions for rehearing." Id. pp. 994- 995. "But paupers filing pro se petitions are not subject to the financial considerations - filing fees and attorneys fees - that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions." Id. p. 996. The Supreme Court (even after all of McDonalds filings) did not close the door to McDonald. A litigant who is identified as filing 73 separate filings in a one-year period; however, ruled, "Petitioner remains free under the present order to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ, if he qualifies under the Courts Rule 46 and does not similarly abuse that privilege." Id. p. 996.Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude, that based upon the facts,evidenced and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW, and their supportingExhibits/Appendices, that the role the Respondents, United States Government,courts, WHITE employers, etc. played in the posting of PROTECTED ACTIVITIESinvolving Newsome on the INTERNET – see EXHIBIT “26” – Internet informationregarding PROTECTED ACTIVITIES involving Newsome which was posted forunlawful/illegal/unethical/malicious/willful intent attached hereto and incorporatedby reference as if set forth in full herein. 37. Newsome believes that the record will sustain that the facts, evidenceand legal conclusions set forth in EM/ORS and PFEW and their supportingExhibits/Appendices will sustain that RELIEF under the ― Writs Act‖ will sustain Allthat there ― persons/parties, though not parties to original action‖ - such as: (a) areUnited States President Barack Obama and members of his Administration, lawyers,advisors, etc.; (b) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC (― BakerDonelson‖) their client (LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY); (c) andothers that may be identified through FACTUAL inquiries/INVESTIGATIONS thatengaged in CONSPIRACIES and criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome –that RELY upon their DOMINENT/PROMINENT positions to INFLUENCE andFRUSTRATE the implementation of the laws, OBSTRUCT the administration ofjustice, and implementation of Orders issued by this Court. Page 23 of 96
  24. 24. Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171 (1996) – Power conferred by All Writs Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to original action . . . are in position to frustrate implementation of court order or proper administration of justice. U.S. v. New York Tel. Co., 98 S.Ct. 364, 434 U.S. 159, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 – Power conferred by this section extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who though not parties to original action . . . are in position to frustrate implementation of court order or proper administration of justice and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice. U.S. v. International Broth. Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, 911 F.Supp. 743 (1996) – Important feature of All Writs Act is its grant of authority to enjoin and bind nonparties to action when needed to preserve court‘s ability to reach or enforce its decision in case over which it has proper jurisdiction. Mongelli v. Mongelli, 849 F.Supp. 215 (1994) - Under All Writs Act, federal courts has authority to issue commands as necessary to effectuate orders it has previously issued and extends to persons who were not parties to original action but are in position to frustrate implementation of court order.Moreover, it is of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE for the CITIZENS/WORLD to see theTerrorist/Supremacist/Racist Regime that may be running the United StatesGovernment – Baker Donelson - and the positions it holds/held in the Governmentfor purposes of exposing how ONE law firm has been ALLOWED to infiltrate theUnited States Government for PROMOTING its RACIST/DISCRIMINATORY/SUPREMACIST ideas over their victims such as Newsome, other citizens andForeign Countries/Leaders: Chief of Staff to the President of the United States United States Secretary of State United States Senate Majority Leader Members of the United States Senate Members of the United States House of Representatives Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control for United States Department of Treasury Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Chief Counsel, Acting Director, and Acting Deputy Director of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services within the United States Department of Homeland Security Page 24 of 96
  25. 25. Majority and Minority Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Member of United States President‘s Domestic Policy Council Counselor to the Deputy Secretary for the United States Department of HHS Chief of Staff of the Supreme Court of the United States Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the United States Deputy under Secretary of International Trade for the United States Department of Commerce Ambassador to Japan Ambassador to Turkey Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman Governor of Tennessee Governor of Mississippi Deputy Governor and Chief of Staff for the Governor of Tennessee Commissioner of Finance & Administration (Chief Operating Officer) - State of Tennessee Special Counselor to the Governor of Virginia United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge United States District Court Judges United States Attorneys Presidents of State and Local Bar AssociationsEMPHASIS ADDED in that this information is pertinent to establish - ― though notparties to original action . . .are in position to frustrate implementation of courtorder or proper administration of justice‖ - the CONSPIRACY and PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled against Newsome out of which this instant reliefis sought. This information was originally located at: http://www.martindale.com/Baker-Donelson-Bearman-Caldwell/law-firm- 307399.htmsee attached at EXHIBIT “10” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as ifset forth in full herein. It is such information which had been posted for severalyears. See APPENDIX “27” listing pulled approximately September 11, 2004.However, when Newsome went PUBLIC and released this information, BakerDonelson moved SWIFTLY for DAMAGE-CONTROL purposes and SCRUBBEDthis information from the Internet. It is a GOOD THING NEWSOME RETAINEDHARD COPIES so that the PUBLIC/WORLD can see COVER-UP andCOWARDLY tactics of one of the most Powerful Leaders (BarackObama)/Countries (United States) attempting to HIDE/MASK their CRIMES/CIVIL Page 25 of 96
  26. 26. WRONGS leveled against Newsome, members of her class and/or citizens of theUnited States. 38. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsprovided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will furthersustain that prior to bringing this matter before the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, that Newsome first sought administrative and/or judicial relief first. To NOavail. Furthermore, that based upon the EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL andCRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances involved that any such claims and/or defensessuch as ― other remedies available‖ to Newsome will further prove FRUITLESSand/or FRIVOLOUS because of the KEY/HIGH positions that Respondents hold andtheir use of said positions to INFLUENCE the outcome of legal matters. Therefore,in efforts to seek justice for the PATTERN-OF-MISCARRIAGE-OF-JUSTICE,PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE, PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL-BEHAVIOR, etc. leveledagainst Newsome, she knew it was IMPERATIVE to submit her EM/ORS to put onDISPLAY and PRESENT/EXPOSE to the PUBLIC/WORLD how the judicialprocess works AGAINST citizens (i.e. such as Newsome) who in GOOD FAITHbring legal actions through proper legal recourse and is REJECTED andSUBJECTED to criminal/civil wrongs in RETALIATION for exercising rightssecured/guaranteed under the Constitution, Civil/Human Rights Act, and otherlaws of the United States. Harris v. Nelson, 89 S.Ct. 1082 (1969) - All Writs Act serves as legislatively approved source of procedural instruments designed to achieve rational ends of law and may be relied on by courts in issuing orders appropriate to assist them in conducting factual inquiries. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651. All Writs Act serves as legislatively approved source of procedural instruments designed to achieve rational ends of law and may be relied on by courts in issuing orders appropriate to assist them in conducting factual inquiries. Id. 39. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions set forth in Newsome‘sEM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will further sustain thatbased upon the FACTS, EVIDENCE and RULES of this Court that some of theRespondents involved in this matter may include STATES, COUNTIES,MUNICIPALITIES, etc. which warrants this Court‘s ORIGINAL jurisdiction. U.S. v. Hayman, 72 S.Ct. 263 (1952) - In determining what auxiliary writs are "agreeable to usages and principles of law within purview of judicial code provision authorizing federal court to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to usages and principles of law, court must look first to common law. 40. Newsome further believes that given the facts, evidence and legalconclusions presented to this Court in her EM/ORS, PFEW, their supportingExhibits/Appendices, MALICIOUS and CRIMINAL acts in placing PROTECTEDinformation on the INTERNET, and what may be DILATORY practices of this Courtin the handling of this matter thus far, that a reasonable mind may conclude that theremay have been SUFFICIENT and ADEQUATE information provided this Court Page 26 of 96
  27. 27. already to aid in its jurisdiction and handling of this matter; rather than rely upon what may be seen as dilatory tactics to AID and ABET Respondents (i.e. who based on established relationships have engaged in CONSPIRACIES and the COVER-UP of same) in the FURTHERANCE of their criminal/civil violations leveled against Newsome. As a matter of law the Supreme Court of the United States has a DUTY to correct the miscarriage of justices made known to it through any/all legal means known to it. Newsome need NOT be specific because this Court has VAST legal resources and KNOWLEDGE and/or the TOOLS TO OBTAIN SUCH KNOWLEDGE in how to handle the EXTRAORDINRY, EXCEPTION and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances brought to its attention by Newsome. Adams v. U.S. ex rel. McCann, 63 S.Ct. 236 (1942) - Unless appropriately confined by Congress, a federal court may avail itself of all auxiliary writs as aids in performance of its duties, when the use of such historic aids is calculated in its sound judgment to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it. Ex parte Milwaukee R. Co., 72 U.S. 188 (1866) - Where a case is properly in the Supreme Court . . ., the Supreme Court has a right under Judiciary Act § 14, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651, to issue any writ which may be necessary to render their . . . jurisdiction effectual. Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84 S.Ct. 769 (1964) - Extraordinary writs are reserved for really extraordinary causes, and then only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). See also 42 USC § 1986: Action for neglect to prevent.19 41. Newsome believes that there is sufficient evidence to further sustain that those among Respondents may be the United States, States, Counties, Municipalities, etc.; moreover their state/government officials in which ORDERS/JUDGMENTS deterring/prohibiting/precluding/preventing present and future unlawful/illegal/unethical behavior Riggs v. Johnson County, 73 U.S. 166 (1867) - Under section 14 of the judiciary act, authorizing the issue of ― other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdiction,‖ . . . courts may issue a mandamus to a state officer. 42. Newsome is CONFIDENT that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in her EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that this legal matter that she has brought before the Supreme Court of the United States is one of EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances. Furthermore, will sustain a CLEAR 19 Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of thistitle, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so todo, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by suchwrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on thecase; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; . . . Page 27 of 96
  28. 28. ABUSE OF DISCRETION, USURPATION OF JUDICIAL POWER/AUTHORITY, LACK OF JURISDICTION in lower court actions to act, etc. Moreover, a REPEAT Pattern-Of-Such-Abuses/Usurpation because Respondents PLACED THEMSELVES ABOVE THE STATUTES and LAWS of the United States and thought they were INVINCIBLE!!! However, like the MAJORITY of career criminals (i.e. as Respondents) they commit way too many crimes and through their ARROGANCE and PRIDE they eventually commit one crime to many and slip up which eventually leads to their DEMISE as in this instant legal action. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 74 S.Ct. 145(1953) - The supplementary review power conferred on courts by Congress in the All Writs Act is meant to be used only in the exceptional case where there is a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. 28 U.S.C.A. s 1651(a). II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in the EM/ORS,PFEW and their Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that, as a matter of law, Newsome is entitled toFindings of Fact/Conclusion of Law that Courts and/or Administrative Agencies relied upon to reachtheir rulings/decisions. Furthermore, that Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELYprovided her demands for Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Laws in WRITING and through theapplicable legal processes – to NO avail. Therefore, sustaining the relief sought through this instantlegal action before the Supreme Court of the United States. 43. Newsome is CONFIDENT that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions in the lower courts‘ and administrative agencies‘ records will SUSTAIN timely requests for Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Laws for any decisions Respondents may alleged was rendered. However, to date, Newsome has NOT received Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Laws requested. Thus, clearly SUPPORTING courts and/or administrative agencies depriving Newsome EQUAL protection of the laws, EQUAL privileges and immunities and DUE PROCESS of laws secured/guaranteed to her under the Constitution and other laws of the United States. Ben David v. Travisono, 495 F.2d 562 (1974) – Whether proceeding under this section or not, . . .court has NO license to ignore REQUIREMENT that it LET PARTIES and appellate court KNOW WHY IT ACTS, and on what FACTUAL BASIS. (n.1) . . . The latter incorporate the common sense rule that a court should let the parties and . . . court know why it acts, and on what factual basis. United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 84 S.Ct. 639, 11 L.Ed.2d 629 (1964). Whether proceeding under the All Writs Act or Page 28 of 96
  29. 29. not, . . . court has NO license to ignore that requirement. Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 177 n.4, 94 S.Ct. 414, 422 n.4, 38 L.Ed. 388 (1973). (n.4) Those enjoined are ENTITLED to be TOLD PRECISELY what conduct is outlawed. Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 94 S.Ct. 713, 715, 35 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974). 44. Newsome is confident that the Supreme Court of the United States‘ inquires and/or investigations into the Judicial and Administrative proceedings brought by Newsome will support that NEITHER organization will have facts, evidence or legal conclusions to REBUT Newsome‘s claims, evidence and case laws provided and there is NOTHING to sustain organizations‘ decisions. Though Newsome requested Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Laws to sustain courts‘/administrations‘ actions, ALL FAILED to produce Newsome with Findings of Fact and the Conclusion of Laws relied upon to reach their decision. American Propeller & Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., 57 S.Ct. 521 (U.S.,1937) - Findings should be examined in light of pleadings to determine scope of findings. 45. Newsome further believes that while she was laughed and mocked at for being so thorough, detailed and presented pleadings considered voluminous, she in GOOD FAITH prepared pleadings for purposes of PRESERVING the claims and issues presented for review by this Court. Furthermore, Newsome knew that Respondents‘ INABILITY to defend against her claims/legal actions were also the reason they did their best to STEER CLEAR of addressing the claims and issues raised. Nevertheless, Newsome remained focused and did not embark and engage in the RAMBLINGS of such criminals and responded with the applicable pleadings to PRESERVE and SUPPORT claims/issues raised and the TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATE submission thereof for review. Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 105 S.Ct. 1713 (1985) - Claim not raised below was bound to fail on review. III. ORIGINAL WRIT Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in her EM/ORS,PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices will further support that prior to bringing this legal actionbefore the Supreme Court of the United States, Newsome in GOOD FAITH and DILIGENTLYsought relief through the applicable process – to NO avail. Newsome‘s efforts proving to be fruitlessbased upon the CORRUPTION and Extraordinary, Exceptional and Critical/Exigent circumstancesof the KEY/BIG MONEY interest groups (i.e. United States President Barack Obama, hisAdministration, Baker Donelson, Libert Mutual, etc.) involved and their ties to POWER POSITIONS Page 29 of 96

×