06/08/12 - EEOC Response To Dismissal & Notice Of Rights

  • 704 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: News & Politics
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
704
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Phone: (513) 575-7167 or (513) 794-0400/(888) 556-7526 County: Hamilton County, Ohio **Ohio Office Having 50+ employees Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems Attn: Vince Messina (President) 11811 Mason-Montgomery Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45249 (513) 774-9187 COMES NOW Complainant Vogel Denise Newsome (“Newsome”) and submits this, herREQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OFRIGHTS, NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACTVIOLATIONS, REQUEST FOR EEOC’S “WRITTEN” DETERMINATION –FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, REQUEST FOR “WRITTEN”TITLE VII INTERPRETATION/OPINION, REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL TO THEOHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, REQUEST FOR STATUS OFCOMMISSION CHARGE TO ISSUE; OBJECTIONS TO EMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S MAY 31, 2012 DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OFRIGHTS; RESPONSE TO OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION’S LETTERDATED MAY 9, 2012 REGARDING “YOUR INQUIRY REGARDINGPOTENTIAL CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION;” and 2ND REQUEST TO BEADVISED OF ALL “CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS” (hereinafter “RFROD&NOR. . .”) inregards to the: “OFFICIAL COMPLAINT/CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION FILED OF AND AGAINST THE GARRETSON FIRM RESOLUTION GROUP INC. AND/OR MESSINA STAFFING/MESSINA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR - UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION – CINCINNATI AREA OFFICE and OHIO CIVIL Page 2 of 59
  • 2. RIGHTS COMMISSION – CENTRAL OFFICE; AND REQUEST FOR COMMISSIONER CHARGE TO BE ISSUED SUBMITTED FOR FILING ON APRIL 30, 2012” (hereinafter “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination”)In support thereof, and without waiving the protected rights preserved herein, Newsome states thefollowing in PRESERVATION of issues raised in “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination”and those set forth in this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .”:I. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 610 F.2d 241 (1980) - [2] EEOC may issue a second 90-day right-to-sue notice upon completion of a discretionary reconsideration of prior determination provided it has given notice to both parties of its decision to reconsider within 90-day period provided by initial notice of right to sue. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e) as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1).29 CFR § 1601.18 DISMISSAL: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY: (a) Where a charge on its face, or as amplified by the statements of the person claiming to be aggrieved discloses, or where after investigation the Commission determines, that the charge and every portion thereof is not timely filed, or otherwise fails to state a claim under title VII, the ADA, or GINA, the Commission shall dismiss the charge. .. (b) Written notice of disposition, pursuant to this section, shall be issued to the person claiming to be aggrieved and to the person making the charge on behalf of such person, where applicable; in the case of a Commissioner charge, to all persons specified in §1601.28(b)(2); and to the respondent. Appropriate notices of right to sue shall be issued pursuant to §1601.28. (c) The Commission hereby delegates authority to District Directors; the Director of the Office of Field Programs, or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs, as appropriate, to dismiss charges, as limited by §1601.21(d). The Commission hereby delegates authority to Field Directors, Area Directors and Local Directors to dismiss charges pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section, as limited by §1601.21(d). The authority of the Commission to reconsider decisions and determinations as set forth in §1601.21 (b) and (d) shall be applicable to this section.29 CFR § 1601.19 No cause determinations: Procedure and authority. (a) Where the Commission completes its investigation of a charge and finds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred or is occurring as to all issues addressed in the determination, the Commission shall issue a letter of determination to all parties to the charge indicating the finding. The Commissions letter of determination shall be the final determination of the Commission. The letter of determination shall inform the person claiming to be aggrieved or the person on whose behalf a charge was filed of the right to sue in Page 3 of 59
  • 3. Federal district court within 90 days of receipt of the letter of determination. . . (b) The Commission may on its own initiative reconsider a final determination of no reasonable cause and an issuing director may, on his or her own initiative reconsider his or her final determination of no reasonable cause. If the Commission or an issuing director decides to reconsider a final no cause determination, a notice of intent to reconsider shall promptly issue to all parties to the charge. If such notice of intent to reconsider is issued within 90 days of receipt of the final no cause determination, and the person claiming to be aggrieved or the person on whose behalf a charge was filed has not filed suit and did not request and receive a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a) (1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider shall vacate the letter of determination and shall revoke the charging partys right to bring suit within 90 days. If the 90 day suit period has expired, the charging party has filed suit, or the charging party had requested a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a) (1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider shall vacate the letter of determination, but shall not revoke the charging partys right to sue in 90 days. After reconsideration, the Commission or issuing director shall issue a new determination. In those circumstances where the charging partys right to bring suit in 90 days was revoked, the determination shall include notice that a new 90 day suit period shall begin upon the charging partys receipt of the determination. Where a member of the Commission has filed a Commissioner charge, he or she shall abstain from making a determination in that case.29 CFR § 1601.21 REASONABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY. (a) After completing its investigation, where the Commission has not settled or dismissed a charge or made a no cause finding as to every allegation addressed in the determination under §1601.19, the Commission shall issue a determination that reasonable cause exists to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred or is occurring under title VII, the ADA, or GINA. A determination finding reasonable cause is based on, and limited to, evidence obtained by the Commission and does not reflect any judgment on the merits of allegations not addressed in the determination. (b) The Commission shall provide prompt notification of its determination under paragraph (a) of this section to the person claiming to be aggrieved, the person making the charge on behalf of such person, if any, and the respondent, or in the case of a Commissioner charge, the person named in the charge or identified by the Commission in the third party certificate, if any, and the respondent. The Commission may, however, on its own initiative reconsider its decision or the determination of any of its designated officers who have authority to issue Letters of Determination, Except that the Commission will not reconsider determinations of reasonable cause previously issued against a government, governmental entity or political subdivision after a failure of conciliation as set forth in §1601.25. (1) In cases where the Commission decides to reconsider a dismissal or a determination finding reasonable cause to believe a charge is true, a notice of intent to reconsider will promptly issue. If such notice of intent to reconsider is issued within 90 days from receipt of a notice of right to sue and the charging party has not filed suit and did not receive a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or letter of determination and revoke the notice of right to sue. If the 90 day period has expired, the charging party has filed suit, or the charging party had requested a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or letter of determination, but will not revoke the notice of right to sue. After reconsideration the Commission will issue a determination anew. In those circumstances where the notice of right to sue has been revoked, the Commission will, in accordance with §1601.28, issue a notice of right to sue anew which will provide the Page 4 of 59
  • 4. charging party with 90 days within which to bring suit.(2) The Commission shall provide prompt notification of its intent to reconsider,which is effective upon issuance, and its final decision after reconsideration to theperson claiming to be aggrieved, the person making the charge on behalf of suchperson, if any, and the respondent, or in the case of a Commissioner charge, the personnamed in the charge or identified by the Commissioner in the third-party certificate, ifany, and the respondent.(c) Where a member of the Commission has filed a Commissioner charge, he or sheshall abstain from making a determination in that case.(d) The Commission hereby delegates to District Directors, or upon delegation, FieldDirectors, Area Directors or Local Directors; and the Director of the Office of FieldPrograms, or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs, theauthority, except in those cases involving issues currently designated by theCommission for priority review, upon completion of an investigation, to make adetermination finding reasonable cause, issue a cause letter of determination and servea copy of the determination upon the parties. Each determination issued under thissection is final when the letter of determination is issued. However, the Director of theOffice of Field Programs, or upon delegation, the Director of Field ManagementPrograms; each District Director; each Field Director; each Area Director and eachLocal Director, for the determinations issued by his or her office, may on his or herown initiative reconsider such determinations, except that such directors may notreconsider determinations of reasonable cause previously issued against a government,governmental agency or political subdivision after a failure of conciliation as set forthin §1601.25.(1) In cases where the issuing Director decides to reconsider a dismissal or adetermination finding reasonable cause to believe a charge is true, a notice of intent toreconsider will promptly issue. If such notice of intent to reconsider is issued within 90days from receipt of a notice of right to sue and the charging party has not filed suitand did not request a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the noticeof intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or letter of determination and revokethe notice of right to sue. If the 90 day period has expired, the charging party has filedsuit, or the charging party had received a notice of right to sue pursuant to§1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal orletter of determination, but will not revoke the notice of right to sue. Afterreconsideration the issuing Director will issue a determination anew. In thosecircumstances where the notice of right to sue has been revoked, the issuing Directorwill, in accordance with §1601.28, issue a notice of right to sue anew which willprovide the charging party with 90 days within which to bring suit.(2) When the issuing Director does reconsider, he or she shall provide promptnotification of his or her intent to reconsider, which is effective upon issuance, andfinal decision after reconsideration to the person claiming to be aggrieved, the personmaking the charge on behalf of such person, if any, and the respondent, or in thecharge or identified by the Commissioner in the third party certificate, if any, and therespondent.(e) In making a determination as to whether reasonable cause exists, substantialweight shall be accorded final findings and orders made by designated FEP agenciesto which the Commission defers charges pursuant to §1601.13. For the purposes ofthis section, the following definitions shall apply:(1) “Final findings and orders” shall mean: Page 5 of 59
  • 5. (i) The findings of fact and order incident thereto issued by a FEP agency on the merits of a charge; or (ii) The consent order or consent decree entered into by the FEP agency on the merits of a charge. Provided, however, That no findings and order of a FEP agency shall be considered final for purposes of this section unless the FEP agency shall have served a copy of such findings and order upon the Commission and upon the person claiming to be aggrieved and shall have informed such person of his or her rights of appeal or to request reconsideration, or rehearing or similar rights; and the time for such appeal, reconsideration, or rehearing request shall have expired or the issues of such appeal, reconsideration or rehearing shall have been determined. (2) “Substantial weight” shall mean that such full and careful consideration shall be accorded to final findings and orders, as defined above, as is appropriate in light of the facts supporting them when they meet all of the prerequisites set forth below: (i) The proceedings were fair and regular; and (ii) The practices prohibited by the State or local law are comparable in scope to the practices prohibited by Federal law; and (iii) The final findings and order serve the interest of the effective enforcement of title VII, the ADA, or GINA: Provided, That giving substantial weight to final findings and orders of a FEP agency does not include according weight, for purposes of applying Federal law, to such Agencys conclusions of law. 1. In the interest of justice and preservation of protected statutory rights,Newsome objects to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions violations oflaws which have deprived her rights secured under Title VII, Code of FederalRegulations, Administrative Procedure Act, United States Constitution, Ohio CivilRights, and other statutes/laws of Ohio and United States of America governing saidmatters. 2. Newsome hereby request RECONSIDERATION of Dismissal and Noticeof Rights, in that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has committedERROR in the handling of this Charge and has DEPRIVED Newsome of rightsstatutorily guaranteed under the laws of Ohio and United States of America. Copies ofMay 31, 2012 Letter with the Dismissals and Notices of Rights for Respondents TheGarretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. and Messina Staffing/Messina ManagementSystems are respectively attached hereto as EXHIBITS “A” and “B” and areincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 3. On or about April 30, 2012, Newsome submitted her “OfficialComplaint/Charge Of Discrimination” which consisted of approximately 196 Pagesand 86 Exhibits - a copy of which may be viewed/received at: http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f 4. Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” consisted ofapproximately 109 NUMBERED Issues Raised and include Sections entitled: (I) Page 6 of 59
  • 6. Violation of Statute, (II) Purpose of Title VII, (III) Pattern Of Discrimination, (IV)Unlawful Employment Termination/Wrongful Discharge, (V) Harassment, (VI) Hostile,(VII) Retaliation, (VIII) Pretext/Bad Faith, (IX) Statistics/Disparate Treatment, (X)Employment-At-Will/Protected Activity, (XI) Public Policy, (XII) Pretext, (XIII)Conspiracy, (XIV) Systematic Discrimination, (XV) Employer Liability, and (XVI)Relief Sought. 5. Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” on its faceand/or amplified by the statements contained therein is supported by facts, evidenceand legal conclusions to sustain the charges made therein as well as the relief sought forthe injuries/harm sustained by Newsome. 6. Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” meets thepleading requirements as required by statutes/laws governing said matters and,therefore, state claims upon which the relief sought by Newsome is to be GRANTED!However, based upon the arbitrary and capricious acts of the Equal EmploymentCommission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission in the handling of Newsomes“Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” thus far, have subjected Newsome toirreparable injury/harm and is attempting to deprive her of statutory rightsGUARANTEED under the laws of the State of Ohio as well as United States ofAmerica. 7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its dismissalof Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and issuance of"Dismissal and Notice of Rights." 8. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission ERRED in its FAILURE to receiveand prosecute Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” allegingthat it was UNTIMELY filed - i.e. in that it was TIMELY filed in accordance with thestatutes/laws governing said matters. Newsome having submitted her “OfficialComplaint/Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with 240days permissible under the laws for Charges filed in a "DEFERRAL" state as Ohio. 9. At the time Newsome submitted her “Official Complaint/Charge OfDiscrimination” she timely, properly and adequately requested that COMMISSIONERCharge to issue. 10. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in committedUNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL acts when its submitted Newsome with "Charges ofDiscrimination" in that a reasonable person/mind, based upon the actions taken mayconclude that the EEOC drafted "Charges of Discrimination" with WILLFUL,MALICIOUS and WANTON intent to evade having to address the ISSUES raised inNewsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination.” Nevertheless, the EEOCwas disappointed when Newsome made the CRITICAL and NECESSARY correctionsto Charges of Discrimination INCORPORATING her “Official Complaint/Charge OfDiscrimination” which CLEARLY preserved her rights as well as ADEQUATELYsupports what ISSUES were before the EEOC at the time of issuance of "Dismissal andNotice of Rights." For further, purposes of preserving ISSUES, evidence and concernsof the EEOCs engagement in SYSTEMATIC CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveledAGAINST Newsome in the handling of “Official Complaint/Charge Of Page 7 of 59
  • 7. Discrimination” Newsome incorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein, herApril 30, 2012 Cover Letter accompanying “Official Complaint/Charge OfDiscrimination” http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9fas well as Newsomes May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 FromDerwin E. Jamison" which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in fullherein and may be obtained from: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/052412-response-to-eeoc-letter-of-050812 11. The EEOC has statutory authority to reconsider its "Dismissal and Noticeof Rights" issued in this matter and to assure that it has been issued in good faith andnot for ILL purposes/motives. 12. Pursuant to the statutes/laws governing said matters, the EEOC failed toperform a MANDATORY ministerial duties OWED under statute(s) to address ALLissues raised in “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent"Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison." Therefore, areasonable person/mind may conclude that the EEOCs acts are arbitrary andcapricious. 13. The EEOC ERRED in its FAILURE to issue a "Letter ofDetermination" setting forth the findings of fact and conclusion of law required bySTATUTE(s) governing said matters. Therefore, through this instant pleading,Newsome OBJECTS to said failure and is DEMANDING that the EEOC issue "Letterof Determination" in accordance with the statutes/laws governing said matters (i.e.which FIRST requires deferral of matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission). Inother words, the EEOC was WITHOUT authority to issue the "Dismissal and Notice ofRights" in that it with DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS and CRIMINAL intent FAILEDto defer Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio CivilRights Commission as MANDATORILY required by STATUTE! 14. While the EEOCs Director may act on his/her own initiative toRECONSIDER his/her final determination of no reasonable cause, Newsome submitsthis instant pleading in that the record evidence as well as the EEOCs SYSTEMATICdiscriminatory practices and PATTERN-OF-DISCRIMINATORY practices in thehandling of charges brought by Newsome warranted Newsome taking theNECESSARY steps in the PRESERVATION of the issues raised andPRESERVATION of Newsomes rights secured and guaranteed by STATUTES/LAWSgoverning said matters. 15. In accordance with the Statutes/Laws governing said matters, Newsomerequest that the EEOC issue the REQUIRED "Notice of Intent to Reconsider"promptly! 16. Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude that theEEOCs/Wilma Javey with DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS and CRIMINAL intentFAILED to file the REQUIRED Commissioner Charge requested by Newsome whichwould clearly PRECLUDE the issuance of the "Dismissal and Notice of Rights"executed. In so doing, the EEOC DEPRIVED Newsome of protected rightssecured/guaranteed by statutes/laws governing said matters. Page 8 of 59
  • 8. 17. The EEOC ERRED in USURPATION of authority as well as ABUSE of Authority in the handling of Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination.” Furthermore, the record evidence supports that the EEOC FAILED to provide "finding as to every allegation addressed in Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."29 CFR § 1601.8 WHERE TO MAKE A CHARGE: A charge may be made in person or by mail at any office of the Commission or with any designated representative of the Commission . . .29 CFR § 1601.9 FORM OF CHARGE: A charge shall be in writing and signed and shall be verified.29 CFR § 1601.12 CONTENTS OF CHARGE; AMENDMENT OF CHARGE: (a) Each charge should contain the following: (1) The full name, address and telephone number of the person making the charge except as provided in §1601.7; (2) The full name and address of the person against whom the charge is made, if known (hereinafter referred to as the respondent); (3) A clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices: See §1601.15(b); (4) If known, the approximate number of employees of the respondent employer or the approximate number of members of the respondent labor organization, as the case may be; and (5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful employment practice have been commenced before a State or local agency charged with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such commencement and the name of the agency. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a charge is sufficient when the Commission receives from the person making the charge a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of. A charge may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to verify the charge, or to clarify and amplify allegations made therein. Such amendments and amendments alleging additional acts which constitute unlawful employment practices related to or growing out of the subject matter of the original charge will relate back to the date the charge was first received. A charge that has been so amended shall not be required to be redeferred. 18. The record evidence will support that Newsome submitted TIMELY filing of “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” to the Equal Employment Page 9 of 59
  • 9. Opportunity Commission and Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Therefore, meeting thepleading requirements as to "WHERE TO MAKE A CHARGE." 19. Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” CLEARLYmeets the pleading requirements for "FORM OF CHARGE" and present ISSUES,provides facts, evidence and legal conclusions to sustain the Complaint/Charge and waspresented in "TYPEWRITTEN" form. 20. Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” meets thepleading requirements for the "CONTENTS OF CHARGE" in that in contains: (1) Thefull name, address and telephone number of the person making the charge; (2) The fullname and address of the person against whom the charge is made, if known; (3) A clearand concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the allegedunlawful employment practices; (4) If known, the approximate number of employees ofthe respondent employer or the approximate number of members of the respondent; and(5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawfulemployment practice have been commenced before a State or local agency chargedwith the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of suchcommencement and the name of the agency. 21. Newsome’s “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” clearly setforth belief that “DISCRIMINATION BASED ON: (1) Race; (2) Age; (3) Retaliation;(4) Other – knowledge of engagement in protected activity(s); and (5) SystematicDiscrimination” – See Page 2. 22. On or about May 8, 2012, the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission provided Newsome with a “CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION” for eachof the Respondents (i.e. The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. and MessinaStaffing/Messina Management Systems). 23. On or about May 9, 2012, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission providedNewsome with correspondence entitled, “Your Inquiry Regarding Potential Charge ofDiscrimination” which stated in part: "We are in receipt of your letter and voluminous documentation regarding a potential charge of discrimination against your former employer, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. and Messina Staffing. As we understand your documentation, you were terminated from employment on October 21, 2011. We received your documentation May 2, 2012. The Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter requires that a charge of 4112, discrimination be filed within six months of the date of harm and therefore the charge is deemed untimely for us to pursue. Your letter to us indicates both the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received identical documentation. Charges may be filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days Page 10 of 59
  • 10. from the date of harm and therefore could be considered timely with them. Our agency, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, is the state administrative law enforcement agency that administers the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112, and we are RESPONSIBLE for INVESTIGATING charges of race, color, sex, national origin, military status, disability, age and religion discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodation. . . Although we have NO jurisdictional authority to investigate this matter, we do want you to know we received and carefully read the materials you provided. If in the future you believe that you are a victim of discrimination that falls under our jurisdiction, please contact us and ask to speak to an investigator. . . "executed by Sandra R. Aukeman/Constituent Services and acting on behalf and withthe APPROVAL of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s Executive Director G.Michael Payton. A copy of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission May 9, 2012 letter isattached hereto and incorporated by reference as EXHIBIT “B.” 24. As EVIDENCED, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission CONFIRMS itsKNOWLEDGE of Newsome’s submittal of “Official Complaint/Charge OfDiscrimination” to both the OCRC and the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission. Under the STATUTES/LAWS governing said matters, Newsome havingapproximately 240 days, instead of the 180 days asserted by the OCRC to file herState Charge. Alsup v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen of Toledo, Ohio, Local Union No. 3, 679 F.Supp. 716 (N.D. Ohio W. Div. 1987) - In “deferral states” such as Ohio, where the EEOC defers to the state agency established to investigate charges of discrimination, an EEOC charge must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1). . . When a charge of discrimination is submitted to both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agency in a “deferral state,” the EEOC will not formally file its charge of discrimination until after the state agency has terminated its proceedings . . . therefore, state administrative charge of discrimination must generally be filed within 240 days of the alleged unlawful practice in order to preserve claimants right to file a Title VII lawsuit in federal court. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1). . . Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 814 n. 16, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 2491 n. 16, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980).Therefore, the OCRC has ERRED in its handling of Newsome’s “OfficialComplaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and the EEOC is to DEFER this matter to theOhio Civil Rights Commission. Furthermore, the EEOC ERRED in its issuance of“Dismissal and Notice of Rights” in that said failure to defer matter to the OCRC Page 11 of 59
  • 11. PRECLUDED/PREVENTED the EEOC from issuing “Dismissal and Notice ofRights.” 25. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”) Executive Director G.Michael Payton is an ATTORNEY/LAWYER, therefore, Newsome believes that areasonable person/mind may conclude that based upon facts, evidence and legalconclusions presented in this instant pleading as well as “Official Complaint/ChargeOf Discrimination” KNEW and/or should have known that the OCR may have actedwith DELIBERATE, WILLFUL and MALICIOUS intent to provide Newsome withFALSE and/or MISLEADING information advising that her “OfficialComplaint/Charge Of Discrimination” filed with the OCRC was UNTIMELY filed.The laws are clear and/or well settled on said matters regarding TIMELINESS forbringing actions and what constitutes a rebuttal and WAIVER to claims as that of theOCRC: Weise v. Syracuse University, 522 F.2d 524 (2nd Cir. 1975), 33 BNA FEP Cas 544 - Court’s dismissal of complaint based on EEOC’s dismissal of charge because of supposed untimeliness of charge was ERROR, since District Court was not bound to accept EEOC’s determination on question as binding and contrary holding would make meaningless the right to sue after dismissal by Commission; while EEOC’s findings are ordinarily entitled to great weight, it seemed to have MISREAD charge, which clearly alleged CONTINUING discrimination (which would make filing TIMELY). American Finance System, Inc. vs. Harlow, 65 FRD 94 (1974) – NINETY-Day limitation period is INAPPLICABLE if alleged discrimination CONTINUES until date claim is brought before the EEOC; acts of past discrimination can be carried forward by PRESENT pattern of conduct, but only where unlawful practices have present and recurring effect on plaintiff-class representative. Grohal vs. Stauffer Chemical Co., 385 F.Supp 1267 (1974), 10 BNA FEP Cas 785 – If discrimination complained of is ONGOING or CONTINUING, statutory time periods are WAIVED; plaintiff claiming such waiver should allege some instances of CONTINUING discrimination in her complaint. Tyson vs. Sun Refining & Marketing Co, 599 F.Supp 136, 36 EXCEPTION to 180 day BNA FEP Cas 875 (1984) – limitations period is made for “CONTINUING VIOLATION” under which theory plaintiffs MUST SHOW SERIES of RELATED acts, one or more of which falls within limitations period, or Page 12 of 59
  • 12. maintenance of discriminatory system both before and during limitations period. Marinelli vs. Chao, 222 F.Supp 2d 402 (2002) – Supreme Court has abrogated continuing violation doctrine in context of discrimination claims brought pursuant to Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USCS §§ 2000e et seq., employing reasoning that would seem to apply equally to Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Rehabilitation Act claims. Austion v. City of Clarksville, 244 Fed.Appx. 639 (C.A. 6, 2007) - The “continuing violations theory” is a specific equitable doctrine that tolls 300-day filing period for discrimination charge. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1).Newsome’s “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” clearly sets forthCONTINUING discriminatory/retaliatory practices leveled against her byRespondents. See Pages 26, 38, 58, 64 66, 69, 105, 135 and 189 supporting Newsomeaddressing CONTINUED practices of Respondent(s). Moreover, Pages 12, 28, 55,68, 74, 79, 81, 116 – 118, 120, 129, 136 and 138 addressing the February 3, 2012MALICIOUS RETALIATORY Lawsuit filed by The Garretson Firm ResolutionGroup, Inc. attempting to deprive Newsome of PROTECTED Rights. A copy of theDocket Sheet can be viewed/received at: http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f Conspirator becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination is regarded under the law as the act of both or all. In other words, what one does, if there is this combination, becomes the act of both or all of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whose involvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual shared in the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). TACIT AGREEMENT - Occurs when two or more persons pursue by their acts the same object by the same means. One person performing one part and the other another part, so that upon completion they have obtained the object pursued. Regardless whether each person knew of the details or what part each was to perform, the end results being they obtained the object pursued. Agreement is implied or inferred from actions or statements. 26. Newsome’s “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” not onlyalleges SYSTEMATIC or SERIAL VIOLATIONS but provides facts, EVIDENCEand legal conclusions to support same: Moore vs. San Jose, 615 F.2d 1265 (1980), 22 BNA FEP Cas 1053 – Pervasive policy of SYSTEMATIC discrimination is CONTINUING so that charge which alleges violation of Title VII, presence of such policy is NOT time-barred. Kassaye vs. Bryant College, 999 F.2d 603 (1993), 62 BNA FEP Cas 724 - There are two kinds of CONTINUING violations, systematic and SERIAL; serial violation is number of discriminatory acts Page 13 of 59
  • 13. emanating from same discriminatory animus, each act constituting separate wrong actionable under Title VII. Moore v. City of San Jose, 615 F.2d 1265 (1980) - [18] A pervasive policy of systematic discrimination is a continuing violation of Title VII. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq. as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. [19] When there has been a pervasive policy of systematic discrimination, the period of limitations on a suit under Title VII does not start to run until the time when the policy is discontinued. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706 as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5. See Paragraphs Nos. 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 29, 33, 37, 38, 55, 63, 71, 73, 76, 87, 96, 99, 100; moreover, Section “XIV. SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION” of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f29 CFR § 1601.28 (3) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY : . . . (3) Issuance of a notice of right to sue shall terminate further proceeding of any charge that is not a Commissioner charge unless the District Director; Field Director; Area Director; Local Director; Director of the Office of Field Programs or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs; or the General Counsel, determines at that time or at a later time that it would effectuate the purpose of title VII, the ADA, or GINA to further process the charge. Issuance of a notice of right to sue shall not terminate the processing of a Commissioner charge. (4) The issuance of a notice of right to sue does not preclude the Commission from offering such assistance to a person issued such notice as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate. 27. Newsome hereby OBJECTS to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL practices in FAILING to issue the Commissioner Charge demanded in the “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” 28. Newsome through this instant filing DEMANDS that the Equal Employment Opportunity provide her with documentation supporting that Commission Charge has issued and, if not, why the EEOC has FAILED and/or OBSTRUCTED the Administration of Justice in the handling of Newsome’s request for Commission Charge to issue. 29. The RECORD evidence will support that while the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, DELIBERATELY and MALICIOUSLY attempt to keep Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” out of the “Charges of Discrimination” it provided her, Newsome made the NECESSARY/CRITICAL corrections and submitted noting reference to typewritten Complaint/Charge submitted as well as NOTING “SYSTEMATIC” Discriminatory practices involved. See Newsome’s May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison" – which is incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/052412-response-to- eeoc-letter-of-050812 Page 14 of 59
  • 14. 30. Newsome’s request for Commission Charge to issue does NOT preclude the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s duty to perform the ministerial obligations owed Newsome in the processing and handling of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”II. NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT VIOLATIONS Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc., 471 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio,1984) - State filing is a mandatory prerequisite to Age Discrimination in Employment Act action. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 14, 29 U.S.C.A. § 633. Piecuch v. Gulf & Western Mfg. Co., 626 F.Supp. 65 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div.,1985) - District court lacked jurisdiction over age discrimination action, where plaintiff had not filed his charge with Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 633(b). 31. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions issuance of "Dismissal and Notice of Right" WITHOUT deferring Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission has resulted in Newsome being INJURED/HARMED and deprived rights secured/guaranteed under the STATUTES/LAWS governing said matters. 32. Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleges "AGE" Discrimination; therefore, it is MANDATORY that her Complaint/Charge be deferred to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission for handling/processing. 33. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its issuance of "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" which asserts that Newsome has 90-Days bring action in federal court. As a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result and the WILLFUL, MALICIOUS and WANTON acts of the EEOC to defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the District Court "LACKS JURISDICTION" to address matter due to the "AGE" Discrimination issue raised in “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Moreover, the OCRC, as a matter of statute/law is MANDATORILY required to handle/process Newsomes Complaint/Charge. The OCRCs May 9, 2012, ACKNOWLEDGES receipt of Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Ramirez v. National Distillers and Chemical Corp., 586 F.2d 1315 (1978) - [4] Where EEOC has failed to refer employment discrimination charge to state agency as required by Title VII, district court should retain jurisdiction for period of time sufficient to allow EEOC to notify appropriate state agency and to allow that agency statutory deferral period in which to act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(d) as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e). . . .This court has held repeatedly that “where the EEOC has failed to follow section 2000e-5(c), the district court should retain jurisdiction for a period of time sufficient to allow the EEOC to notify the appropriate state agency and to allow that agency the statutory deferral period in which to act.” (Gallego v. Arthur G. McKee & Co. Page 15 of 59
  • 15. (9th Cir. 1977) 550 F.2d 456, 457. Cf. EEOC v. Wah Chang Albany Corp. (9th Cir. 1974) 499 F.2d 187, 189 n.3 (“deferral is not a jurisdictional fact in the sense that its absence deprives the court of power to act”).) Moreover, it is doubtful that a procedural error committed by the EEOC could bar a plaintiffs right to pursue a Title VII claim. (See Miller v. International Paper Co. (5th Cir. 1969) 408 F.2d 283, 291 (“The action or inaction of the EEOC cannot affect the grievants substantive rights under the statute.”); Cf. Gates v. Georgia- Pacific Corp. (9th Cir. 1974) 492 F.2d 292, 295.) Because the EEOC eventually did refer Ramirezs amended charge to the appropriate state agency, the district court erred in dismissing on jurisdictional grounds the Title VII claim with respect to the 1974 layoff. Judulang v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 476 (2011) - When reviewing an agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a court must assess, among other matters, whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment, which involves examining the reasons for the agencys decisions or the absence of such reasons. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A). 34. A CLEAR error of judgment and issuance of the "Dismissal and Notice ofRights" which further requires EXAMINATION of the unlawful/illegal practices of theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. Moreover, requirement ofCOMMISSIONER Charge to ISSUE! N. L. R. B. v. Enterprise Assn of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Mach. and General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638, 97 S.Ct. 891 (1977) - When administrative agency has made error of law, duty of court is to correct error of law committed by that body and after doing so to remand case to the agency so as to afford it opportunity of examining evidence and finding facts as required by law. Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co., 73 S.Ct. 85 (1952) - On review of order of Federal Power Commission, the function of the reviewing court ends when an error of law is laid bare and at that point the matter once more goes to the Commission for reconsideration. Federal Power Act, § 313(b), as amended, 16 U.S.C.A. § 825 l(b). 35. Newsome further PRESERVES issues and EVIDENCE of the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commissions and Ohio Civil Rights CommissionsKNOWLEDGE of their ERRORS being timely, properly and adequately brought totheir attention. 36. Newsome further PRESERVES through the filing of this instant pleadingthe ISSUES raised herein. Moreover, that under the statutes/laws governing saidmatters, Newsome hereby TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY make knownthat rulings from the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission contain FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSION OF LAWto support the decisions rendered. Moreover, to support that ALL issues raised in“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” have been addressed. Page 16 of 59
  • 16. 37. Newsome believes that the RECORD evidence will support thatNEITHER the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOR the Ohio CivilRights Commission handled Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge OfDiscrimination” in compliance with the statutes/laws governing said matters and,therefore, as a direct and proximate result of said FAILURE have subjected Newsometo injury/harm and deprived her rights secured/guaranteed under the statutes/lawsgoverning said matters. 38. Newsome believes that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commissions handling of Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” will support ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS acts for illpurposes and to cause her injury/harm PROHIBITED by statutes/laws governing saidmatters. 39. Newsome believes that the record evidence will support "CLEAR andPREJUDICIAL violation of applicable statutes and regulations" by the Ohio CivilRights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in thehandling of Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” 40. Newsome believes that the record EVIDENCE supports that she has beenINJURED/HARM by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions FAILURE todefer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as well as provide "Findings of Factand Conclusion of Law" to support the "Dismissal and Notice of Rights;" moreover, theEEOCs FAILURE to request the COMMISSIONER Charge to ISSUE as demanded inNewsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24,2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison." 41. Newsome believes that the record EVIDENCE supports her INTERESTSthat sought to be vindicated are arguably WITHIN "ZONE of INTEREST" and areISSUES and rights PROTECTED by statutes/laws in question and set forth in “OfficialComplaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent "Response To Letter of May8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison." Kroger Co. v. Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County, 286 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2002) - Under the arbitrary or capricious standard of review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the party challenging the agencys action must show that the action had no rational basis or that it involved a clear and prejudicial violation of applicable statutes or regulations, and if there is any evidence to support the agencys decision, the agencys determination is not arbitrary or capricious. 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 et seq., 706(2)(A). Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, Dept. of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 115 S.Ct. 1278 (U.S.,1995) - Litigant challenging agency action is required to show, at outset of case, that he is injured in fact by agency action and that interest he seeks to vindicate is arguably within zone of interests to be protected by statute in question. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 110 S.Ct. 3177 (1990) - In order to obtain judicial review under the general review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the person claiming right to sue must identify some agency action that affects him in specified fashion and Page 17 of 59
  • 17. must show that he has suffered legal wrong because of the challenged agency action or is adversely affected or aggrieved by that action within the meaning of a relevant statute. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702. Center For Biological Diversity v. Lueckel, 417 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2005) - To obtain judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), plaintiffs complaint must relate to agency action or failure to act, and plaintiff must have suffered either legal wrong or injury falling within zone of interests sought to be protected by statute on which complaint is based. 5 U.S.C.A. § 551 et seq. Federal Power Comn v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 75 S.Ct. 467 (1955) - Section of Administrative Procedure Act defining scope of review applies only to situations where question at issue has been properly presented. Administrative Procedure Act, § 10(e), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009(e). 42. Newsome believes as a direct and proximate result of the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to comply with the statutes/lawsgoverning the handling of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination,” theEEOC deprived her the MANDATORY deferral of Complaint/Charge to the Ohio CivilRights Commission and, therefore, in said deprivation was subjected to BIAS,DISCRIMINATORY, PREJUDICIAL, and UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL processing andhandling of her claim. Furthermore, unlawfully/illegally DEPRIVED Newsome of aSTATUTORY right to have matter presented and investigated by the Ohio Civil RightsCommission. As a direct and proximate result of the EEOCs unlawful/illegal handlingof Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” she has suffered andcontinues to suffer legal wrongs and SYSTEMATIC discriminatory practices by theEEOC and those with whom it CONSPIRES to deprive Newsome rightssecured/guaranteed and provided by statutes/laws governing said matters. 43. Newsome believes that as a direct and proximate result of the Ohio CivilRights Commissions unlawful/illegal handling of Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” she has suffered and continues to suffer legal wrongs andSYSTEMATIC discriminatory practices in the handling of Complaint/Charge by theOCRC and those with whom it CONSPIRES to deprive Newsome rightssecured/guaranteed and provided by statutes/laws governing said matters. 44. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission FAILURE to handle and prosecuteNewsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” under theFALSE/FRIVOLOUS argument alleging it was untimely filed: (a) is an injury/harmrendered by the OCRC AGAINST Newsome which is concrete and particularized inthat Newsome having approximately 240 days to file Complaint/Charge and her“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” submitted to the OCRC is wellwithin the statute of limitations to file. (b) The record evidence supports that there is aCONNECTION between the action taken by the OCRC and the EEOC to causeNewsome the injury/harm sustained in efforts of depriving her protected rights that arewithin the "zone of interest" for the relief sought. Furthermore, there is a WELL-ESTABLISHED systematic discriminatory practice by the EEOC in the handling ofComplaints/Charges brought by Newsome. It appears that once the EEOC receivedcorrespondence from the OCRC alleging that Newsomes “Official Complaint/ ChargeOf Discrimination” was untimely filed, the EEOC thought that Newsome would be Page 18 of 59
  • 18. IGNORANT of the laws and not aware of the CRIMINAL and CIVIL wrongs in thehandling and processing of her Complaint/Charge. To the OCRCs and the EEOCsdisappointment, Newsome sets forth and EXPOSES their DISCRIMINATORY, BIASand PREJUDICIAL handling of her “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”(c) Newsome believes that the record evidence will support the likelihood that theinjury/harm she has sustained and continues to sustain in the OCRCs and the EEOCshandling of Complaint/Charge will be REDRESSED by a FAVORABLE decision of acourt WITHOUT ties/connections and personal/financial/business INTEREST to theRespondents and those with whom they have conspired to get the EEOC and OCRC toengage in the unlawful/illegal practices in the handling of Newsomes “OfficialComplaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Courtney v. Smith, 297 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. Ohio,2002) - For purposes of judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), party cannot be “adversely affected...within the meaning of a relevant statute” unless the party is within the zone of interest sought to be protected by that statute. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702. . . . [4] To satisfy Article IIIs case-or-controversy requirement, plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; (2) a connection between the injury and the conduct at issue, in that the injury must be fairly traceable to defendants action; and (3) a likelihood that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision of the court. U.S.C.A.Const. 3, § 2, cl. 1 [5] [6] Section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) permits injured parties to obtain judicial review of agency actions that allegedly violate federal statutes. 5 U.S.C. § 702 (“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”). A plaintiff seeking judicial review of agency action under the APA, however, must not only meet the constitutional requirements of standing, but must also demonstrate prudential standing. Natl Credit Union Admin. v. First Natl Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 488, 118 S.Ct. 927, 140 L.Ed.2d 1 (1998) ( NCUA ) (“We have interpreted § 10(a) of the APA to impose a prudential standing requirement in addition to the requirement, imposed by Article III of the Constitution, that a plaintiff have suffered a sufficient injury in fact.”). Prudential standing exists if the interest that the plaintiff seeks to protect is “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute ... in question.” Id. (ellipsis in original) (quoting Assn of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)). Bunten v. Bunten, 710 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio.App.3.Dist.,1998) - Judgment entry may be general; where findings of fact and conclusions of law were not specifically requested by party, regularity of proceedings at trial level will be presumed. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 52. Ng Yip Yee v. Barber, 267 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1959) - A court may vacate the findings of an administrative body if not supported by the evidence or if upon the record as a whole it appears that a mistake has been made. Page 19 of 59
  • 19. 45. Newsome believes that the record EVIDENCE further supports and maintains that this instant pleading as well as “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison" meets the Constitutional standing, but also demonstrates "PRUDENTIAL" standing supported by the facts, evidence and legal conclusions presented in Newsomes pleadings. 46. PRUDENTIAL standing exists in that the interest Newsome seeks to protect is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected and is regulated by statutes/laws governing said matters. 47. For purposes of PRESERVATION of the issues set forth in this instant pleading as well as Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison," she is SPECIFICALLY requesting that decisions rendered by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission be supported by documented "Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law" as to the issues raised in her Complaint/Charge and her subsequent filings. 48. Newsome timely, properly and adequately asserts her OBJECTION to the EEOCs "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" in that it INFRINGES upon Newsomes rights secured/guaranteed by statutes/laws governing said matters. Moreover, that the OCRC and the EEOC have ERRED in the handling of Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” 49. Because the State of Ohio is a "DEFERRAL" State, the EEOC was PRECLUDED from rendering its "Dismissal and Notice of Rights." Therefore, Newsome, timely, properly and adequately OBJECTS to the unlawful/illegal acts of the EEOC and its efforts to deprive her of rights MANDATED by STATUTE to defer this matter to the OCRC for handling and processing. 50. The EEOC has ERRED in its unlawful/illegal handling of Newsomes request to have COMMISSIONER Charge to ISSUE. 51. Newsome through the filing of this instant pleading as well as “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison," PRESERVES the ISSUES contained within these pleadings/documents. ALL Issues which as required by statute/law MUST be addressed.III. REQUEST FOR EEOC’S “WRITTEN” DETERMINATION – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, REQUEST FOR “WRITTEN” TITLE VII INTERPRETATION/OPINION Page 20 of 59
  • 20. Cleveland v. Posner, 2011 -Ohio- 1370 (Ohio.App.8.Dist., 2011) - For purposes of determining whether an administrative agencys decision is supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, “reliable evidence” is dependable; that is, it can be confidently trusted. Sarr v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 354 (6th Cir. 2007) - Court of Appeals must sustain an administrative decision if that determination is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. Coalition for Government Procurement v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc., 365 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2004) - If there is any evidence to support agencys decision, agencys determination is not arbitrary or capricious. . . . Deferential judicial review of agency action under Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not relieve agency of its obligation to develop evidentiary basis for its findings. 5 U.S.C.A. § 551 et seq. 52. This instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is presented for purposes ofPRESERVING the issues raised in Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge OfDiscrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012From Derwin E. Jamison." 53. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ERRED in thehandling of Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” andsubsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E.Jamison." 54. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ERRED in itsFAILURE to defer Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” tothe Ohio Civil Rights Commission. 55. Through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Newsome TIMELY,PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY presents and PRESERVES the ISSUE that thedecision(s) by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission MUST be supported by substantial, reliable and probativeEVIDENCE. 56. The STATUTES/LAWS governing said matters will support that theOhio Civil Rights Commission has JURISDICTION to handle and process Newsomes“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Furthermore, the OCRCACKNOWLEDGES receipt of Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge OfDiscrimination” which may save COSTS/EXPENSES in having to reproduce what theOCRC has addressed as "VOLUMINOUS." 57. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission advised Newsome that it is in receiptof, "letter and voluminous documentation regarding a potential charge of discriminationagainst your former employer, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. and Messina Staffing."Therefore, a reasonable person/mind may conclude that Newsomes Official Complaint/ ChargeOf Discrimination” is supported by substantial, reliable and probative EVIDENCE! Page 21 of 59
  • 21. 58. The record evidence further supports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions unlawful/illegal and BIAS, PREJUDICIAL, and DISCRIMINATORY handling of Newsomes Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” 59. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions handling of Newsomes Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” is arbitrary and capricious. 60. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions FAILURE to defer Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as MANDATORILY required by statute/law is arbitrary and capricious. 61. The Ohio Civil Rights Commissions in failure to handle and process Newsomes Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleging it was untimely filed is ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS! Newsomes Complaint/Charge was filed WELL within the 240 Days required to bring action with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. 62. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission FAILED to present any evidence that Newsomes Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” was untimely filed although it ACKNOWLEDGES, "Your letter to us indicates both the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received identical documentation." See EXHIBIT "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.29 CFR § 1601.15(b) INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY: (a) The investigation of a charge shall be made by the Commission, its investigators, or any other representative designated by the Commission. During the course of such investigation, the Commission may utilize the services of State and local agencies which are charged with the administration of fair employment practice laws or appropriate Federal agencies, and may utilize the information gathered by such authorities or agencies. As part of each investigation, the Commission will accept any statement of position or evidence with respect to the allegations of the charge which the person claiming to be aggrieved, the person making the charge on behalf of such person, if any, or the respondent wishes to submit. (b) As part of the Commissions investigation, the Commission may require the person claiming to be aggrieved to provide a statement which includes: (1) A statement of each specific harm that the person has suffered and the date on which each harm occurred; (2) For each harm, a statement specifying the act, policy or practice which is alleged to be unlawful; (3) For each act, policy, or practice alleged to have harmed the person claiming to be aggrieved, a statement of the facts which lead the person claiming to be aggrieved to believe that the act, policy or practice is discriminatory. Page 22 of 59
  • 22. (c) The Commission may require a fact-finding conference with the parties prior to a determination on a charge of discrimination. The conference is primarily an investigative forum intended to define the issues, to determine which elements are undisputed, to resolve those issues that can be resolved and to ascertain whether there is a basis for negotiated settlement of the charge. (d) The Commissions authority to investigate a charge is not limited to the procedures outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. 63. The record evidence will support that Newsomes “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter ofMay 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison" present ISSUES and are supported bySTATEMENT of EACH specific harm asserted by Newsome. Therefore, Newsome isdemanding that the decision(s) of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission contain “Findings of Fact and Conclusion ofLaw” to sustain ruling/decision. 64. Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” andsubsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E.Jamison" raises the ISSUES and provides STATEMENTS specifying the act, policy orpractice which is alleged to be unlawful. Moreover, act, policy or practice withsupports Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequentMay 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison." 65. Newsomes “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” sets forththe "FACTS OF THIS COMPLAINT" which supports the relief she seeks therein. 66. Through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” pursuant to the FourteenthAmendment of the Constitution, ,Newsome DEMANDS and REQUIRE that the OhioCivil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity provide her a copyof Respondents ANSWER to “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” so thatshe can exercise her right to CONTEST and/or RESPOND in rebuttal (if elected to doso). 67. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” OBJECTS to theunlawful/illegal, BIAS, PREJUDICIAL and DISCRIMINATORY handling of theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission’s handling of “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination.” 68. While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/Wilma Javeyadvised Newsome regarding Charges filed against Respondents - The Garretson FirmResolution Group Inc. and Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems – whichstated in part: “We have completed a careful review of the charge of employment discrimination that you filed against The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. (Charge No. 473-2012-00832). Our review included the assessment of all the information you offered. As a result of our careful review of the charge you filed, we have decided to STOP PROCESSING the charge. Our review of the available evidence reflects that your age and race had no bearing on Page 23 of 59
  • 23. your termination. There is also NO evidence that indicates you were retaliated against. There is NO indication that further investigation will result in a finding of a violation. . . .” “We have completed a careful review of the charge of employment discrimination that you filed against Messina Staffing & Messina Management Systems (Charge No. 473-2012-00837). Our review included the assessment of all the information you offered. As a result of our careful review of the charge you filed, we have decided to STOP PROCESSING the charge. Our review of the available evidence reflects that your age and race had no bearing on your termination. There is also NO evidence that indicates you were retaliated against. There is NO indication that further investigation will result in a finding of a violation. . . .”and provided Dismissal and Notice of Rights which states in part: DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS: “The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does NOT certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. NO finding is made as to ANY other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.” UNMARKED Box: “The EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this charge.”this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is hereby served on the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission and Ohio Civil Rights Commission for providingEVIDENCE of the PRESERVATION of the issues contained herein and those raisedin “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012"Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."Newsome believes that the DELIBERATE and WILLFUL act of the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to mark the Box stating, “TheEEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practicesagency that investigated this charge” further supports that it KNEW and/or shouldhave KNOWN of the MANDATORY requirement and/or statute to defer “OfficialComplaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. 69. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” TIMELY,PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY presents her OBJECTIONS to the unlawful/illegalhandling and processing of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” by theOhio Civil Rights Commissions and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 70. There is NO probative EVIDENCE to support the Ohio Civil RightsCommission’s assertion that Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge OfDiscrimination” was untimely filed. Page 24 of 59
  • 24. Gladieux v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 728 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio.App.10.Dist. 1999) - “Probative evidence” in support of determination by administrative agency is evidence that tends to prove the issue in question, and is relevant. 71. There is NO probative EVIDENCE to support the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission’s FAILURE to defer matter to the Ohio Civil RightsCommission as MANDATORILY required by STATUTES/LAWS governing saidmatters. 72. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” hereby requires thatthe Ohio Civil Rights Commission perform the MINISTERIAL duties owed Newsomein the handling, processing and investigation of her “Official Complaint/ Charge OfDiscrimination.” Moreover, provide Newsome with its “Findings of Fact andConclusion of Law” with any/all decisions rendered in this matter. Dayton Tavern, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 732 N.E.2d 465 (Ohio.App.2.Dist. 1999) - In reviewing an administrative order, common pleas court must defer to administrative agencys findings of fact unless the court finds they are internally inconsistent, impeached by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, rest on improper inferences, or are otherwise unsupportable. 73. In PRESERVATION of Newsome’s rights and PRESERVATION ofISSUES, this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is hereby submitted to the Ohio Civil RightsCommission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 74. In PRESERVATION OF Newsome’s rights and PRESERVATION ofISSUES, Newsome states that there is NO credible evidence to support the decision ofthe Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s failure to prosecute Newsome’s “OfficialComplaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleging it was untimely filed. Therefore,supporting that there is a CLEAR ERROR in judgment by the OCRC! Wurzelbacher v. Colerain Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 663 N.E.2d 713 (Ohio.App.1.Dist.Hamilton.Co.,1995) - When party claims that evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support administrative decision, Court of Appeals is . . . to determine whether there is any competent, credible evidence to support administrative decision. L.P. Cavett Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 892 F.Supp. 973 (S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1995) - Court reviewing agency decision should examine whether decision was based on consideration of relevant factors and whether there has been clear error of judgment. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A). Conley v. National Mines Corp., 595 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2010) - . . . factual determinations must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, and the decision as a whole must be affirmed if the . . . decision was rational, supported by substantial evidence in the record, and consistent with controlling law. 75. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” timely, properly andadequately request that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission provide her with its Page 25 of 59
  • 25. “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support that Newsome’s “OfficialComplaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” was untimely filed. MERE“verbal/typewritten” assertion of untimely filing is NOT sufficient in that Newsomehas presented facts, evidence and legal conclusion to sustain the acts of the Ohio CivilRights Commission being arbitrary and/or capricious. 76. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” timely, properly andadequately request that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provideprovide her with its “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support its“FAILURE to defer ‘Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination’ to the OhioCivil Rights Commission.” Newsome further believes that the facts, evidence andlegal conclusion supporting this instant filing sustains the EEOC’s handling of“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” is arbitrary and capricious.Moreover, in keeping of its SYSTEMATIC discriminatory and SYSTEMATICcriminal/civil violations leveled against Newsome. National Cotton Council of America v. U.S. E.P.A., 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009) - When conducting review under the Administrative Procedure Acts (APA) “arbitrary and capricious” standard, the reviewing court ensures that the agency examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts and the choice made. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A). 77. This instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is submitted for purposes of preservingthe ISSUES of Newsome’s “Request for EEOCs WRITTEN Determination -Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and Request for WRITTEN Title VIIInterpretation/Opinion” as well as her formal/official request that the Ohio CivilRights Commission provide its “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” that it reliedupon and alleging that Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination”was untimely filed. Alliance for Community Media v. F.C.C., 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008) - Courts deem agency action to be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. . . Agency action is not in accordance with the law when it is in conflict with the language of the statute relied upon by the agency. . . . Pursuant to arbitrary-and-capricious review of agency action, a court must canvass the record to determine whether there exists a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; upon conducting this searching inquiry, the court is required to grant controlling weight to the agencys regulatory activity unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the underlying statute. Rapier v. Philpot, 130 S.W.3d 560 (2004) - The filing of exceptions to a agencys findings of fact and recommendation provides the means for preserving and identifying issues for review by the agency head; in turn, filing exceptions is necessary to preserve issues for further judicial review. . . . When a party in an administrative hearing fails to file exceptions to the hearing officers findings of fact and recommendation, Page 26 of 59
  • 26. the issues the party can raise on judicial review are limited to those findings and conclusions contained in the agency heads final order that differ from those contained in the hearing officers recommended order. Gashgai v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 390 A.2d 1080 (1978) - Courts need to know what an agency has really determined in order to know even what to review. 78. This instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” further supports that Newsome hastimely, properly and adequately submitted her OBJECTIONS to the Ohio Civil RightsCommission’s failure to handle and prosecute “Official Complaint/ Charge OfDiscrimination” alleging untimely filing as well as Newsome’s OBJECTIONS to theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission’s ERROR in failing to defer matter to theOhio Civil Rights Commission and VERIFICATION/PROOF of Newsome’s requestfor “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support ALL decisions rendered inthis matter by both the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and EEOC. Stevens v. Highland Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2005 -Ohio- 2338 (Ohio.App.4.Dist.,2005) - Trial court did not have duty to elaborate as to how it arrived at decision . . . where state employee did not make request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. R.C. § 2315.19; Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 52. U.S. v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 73 S.Ct. 67 (1952) - Generally, court should not topple over administrative decisions unless the administrative body not only has erred but has erred against objection made at the time appropriate under its practice. LeBlanc v. E.P.A., 310 Fed.Appx. 770 (6th 2009) - A reviewing court may not consider arguments that were not previously raised before an administrative agency under the doctrine of issue exhaustion or the administrative waiver doctrine. Wilson Air Center, LLC v. F.A.A., 372 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2004) - The administrative waiver doctrine, commonly referred to as issue exhaustion, provides that it is inappropriate for courts reviewing agency decisions to consider arguments not raised before the administrative agency involved. Stauffer Laboratories, Inc. v. F.T.C., 343 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. 1965) - [8] Findings which would satisfy requirements of Federal Rule of Procedure relating to findings by court in case tried without jury would satisfy requirements of section of Administrative Procedure Act requiring that findings of administrative commission include statement of findings and conclusions as well as reasons or basis therefor upon all material issues of fact. Administrative Procedure Act, § 8(b), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1007(b); Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 52, 28 U.S.C.A. Brown v. Rock Creek Min. Co., Inc., 996 F.2d 812 (6th Cir. 1993) - Administrative law judge is statutorily obliged to consider all of the evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law which adequately set forth factual and legal basis for his decision. Page 27 of 59
  • 27. Brae Corp. v. U.S., 740 F.2d 1023 (1984) - [2] Administrative agency must consider all critical aspects of problem before it, and must articulate reasoned explanation for its action, including rational connection between facts found and choice made. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor vs. Georgia Congleton, 743 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1984) - [1] It is critical to the appellate review process that administrative law judge clearly set forth rationale for his findings of fact and conclusions of law. 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(c)(3)(A). . . . [1] The ALJ found that the miner worked “well over twenty-five years” in the coal mines. This finding of fact can be upheld only if it is supported by substantial evidence. Haywood v. Secretary, 699 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.1983). However, it is critical to the appellate review process that the ALJ clearly set forth the rationale for his findings of fact and conclusions of law. Section 557(c)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act mandates that “... all decisions shall include a statement of-(A) findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefore, on all the material issues of fact, law or discretion presented on the record ...” (emphasis added). The courts have respected this requirement by remanding cases where the reasoning for the ALJs conclusion is lacking and therefore presents inadequate information to accommodate a thorough review. See, e.g., Maxey v. Califano, 598 F.2d 874, 875, 876 (4th Cir.1979); Schaaf v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 157 (3rd Cir.1978); Arnold v. Secretary, 567 F.2d 258 (4th Cir.1977). Brown v. Rock Creek Min. Co., Inc., 996 F.2d 812 (6th Cir. 1993) - [4] Administrative law judge is statutorily obliged to consider all of the evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law which adequately set forth factual and legal basis for his decision. . . . In light of this conclusion, we find that we must remand the case . . An administrative . . . is statutorily obliged “to consider all of the evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law which adequately set forth the factual and legal basis for his decision.” Director, OWCP v. Rowe, 710 F.2d 251, 254-55 (6th Cir.1983).FN2 (Emphasis supplied). (Citations omitted). FN2. See 5 U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A) (1977) (The Administrative Procedure Act requires that an administrative . . . decision be accompanied by “findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all material issues of fact, law or discretion presented on the record.”) (Emphasis added.); see also 20 C.F.R. § 725.477(b) (1992); Director, OWCP v. Congleton, 743 F.2d 428, 429 (6th Cir.1984). 79. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” further request/demand that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provide her with documentation setting forth information for Claimants to APPEAL the EEOC’s “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” when issued in ERROR and/or when Claimants may want to challenge the EEOC decision. Newsome did NOT receive APPEAL information advising her of what her rights are to APPEAL the EEOC’s “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” through the Appeal process. This request is made in GOOD FAITH and in PRESERVATION of this ISSUE:29 CFR § 1601.91 REQUEST FOR TITLE VII INTERPRETATION OR OPINION: Any interested person desiring a written title VII interpretation or opinion Page 28 of 59
  • 28. from the Commission may make such a request. . . .29 CFR § 1601.92 CONTENTS OF REQUEST: WHERE TO FILE: A request for an “opinion letter” shall be in writing, signed by the person making the request, addressed to the Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507 and shall contain: (a) The names and addresses of the person making the request and of other interested persons. (b) A statement of all known relevant facts. (c) A statement of reasons why the Title VII interpretation or opinion should be issued.IV. REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL TO THE OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Request for Deferral to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission sets forth the following: Alsup v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen of Toledo, Ohio, Local Union No. 3, 679 F.Supp. 716 (N.D. Ohio W. Div. 1987) - In “deferral states” such as Ohio, where the EEOC defers to the state agency established to investigate charges of discrimination, an EEOC charge must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1). . . When a charge of discrimination is submitted to both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agency in a “deferral state,” the EEOC will not formally file its charge of discrimination until after the state agency has terminated its proceedings . . . therefore, state administrative charge of discrimination must generally be filed within 240 days of the alleged unlawful practice in order to preserve claimants right to file a Title VII lawsuit in federal court. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1). . . Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 814 n. 16, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 2491 n. 16, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980). Perazzo v. Top Value Enterprises, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 428 (S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1984) - Ohio qualified as a deferral state under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and, accordingly, 300-day statutory period would be applied in analyzing timeliness of filing of complaint. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, §§ 7(d), 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 626(d), 633(b).29 CFR § 1601.13 FILING; DEFERRALS TO STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES Page 29 of 59
  • 29. . . . (3) Charges arising in jurisdictions having a FEP agency with subject matter jurisdiction over the charges are to be processed in accordance with the Commissions deferral policy set forth below and the procedures in paragraph (a)(4) of this section. . . . (i) In order to give full weight to the policy of section 706(c) of title VII, which affords State and local fair employment practice agencies that come within the provisions of that section an opportunity to remedy alleged discrimination concurrently regulated by title VII, the ADA, or GINA and State or local law, the Commission adopts the following procedures with respect to allegations of discrimination filed with the Commission. It is the intent of the Commission to thereby encourage the maximum degree of effectiveness in the State and local agencies. The Commission shall endeavor to maintain close communication with the State and local agencies with respect to all matters forwarded to such agencies and shall provide such assistance to State and local agencies as is permitted by law and as is practicable. . . (iii) A FEP agency may waive its right to the period of exclusive processing of charges provided under section 706(c) of title VII with respect to any charge or category of charges. Copies of all such charges will be forwarded to the appropriate FEP agency. (4) The following procedures shall be followed with respect to charges which arise in jurisdictions having a FEP agency with subject matter jurisdiction over the charges: (i) Where any document, whether or not verified, is received by the Commission as provided in §1601.8 which may constitute a charge cognizable under title VII, the ADA, or GINA, and where the FEP agency has not waived its right to the period of exclusive processing with respect to that document, that document shall be deferred to the appropriate FEP agency as provided in the procedures set forth below: (A) All such documents shall be dated and time stamped upon receipt. (B) A copy of the originial document, shall be transmitted by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the appropriate FEP agency, or, where the FEP agency has consented thereto, by certified mail, by regular mail or by hand delivery. State or local proceedings are deemed to have commenced on the date such document is mailed or hand delivered. (C) The person claiming to be aggrieved and any person filing a charge on behalf of such person shall be notified, in writing, that the document which he or she sent to the Commission has been forwarded to the FEP agency pursuant to the provisions of section 706(c) of title VII. . .Gorman v. Hughes Danbury Optical Systems, 908 F.Supp. 107 (1995) -Provision extending, for 300 days, the filing period for bringing claimunder Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in deferralstate does not restrict commencement of stateproceedings, and filing charge with state agencyneed not precede filing charge with EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 7(d), 29 U.S.C.A. §626(d). Page 30 of 59
  • 30. Davis v. Wesley Retirement Communities, Inc., 913 F.Supp. 1437(1995) - In a deferral state . . . a Title VII claimant must file his or herdiscrimination charge with appropriate state or local agency, or withEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), within threehundred days of alleged unlawful act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.Johnson-Romaker v. Kroger Ltd. Partnership One, 609 F.Supp.2d 719(N.D.Ohio.W.Div.,2009) - Plaintiff who first files Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission (EEOC) charge with state or local agencymust file it within 300 days of allegeddiscriminatory event. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706, 42U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5.Hout v. City of Mansfield, 550 F.Supp.2d 701 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div.,2008)- In deferral states such as Ohio, 300-day limitations period under TitleVII for filing complaint with Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (EEOC) begins to run once employee is aware orreasonably should be aware of allegedly unlawful employmentdecision, not when employee learns that employment decision mayhave been discriminatorily motivated. Civil Rights Act of 1964, §706(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1).Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (U.S.,2006) - Under Title VII, acomplainant who initially institutes proceedings with a state or localagency with authority to grant or seek relief from the practice chargedmust file a charge with that agency, or have the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) refer thecharge to that agency, within 240 days of the allegeddiscriminatory event. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), 42U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e).Nichols v. Muskingum College, 318 F.3d 674 (C.A.6.Ohio,2003) -Aggrieved person does not necessarily have to file astate charge within the state statute of limitationsperiod to preserve the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission (EEOC) 300-day filingperiod. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(d)(1) et seq., as amended, 42U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1).Alsup v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen ofToledo, Ohio, Local Union No. 3, 679 F.Supp. where(N.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1987) - In “deferral states” such as Ohio,the EEOC defers to the state agency established toinvestigate charges of discrimination, an EEOCcharge must be filed within 300 days after the Page 31 of 59
  • 31. alleged unlawful act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Morris v. Russell, Burdsall & Ward Corp., 577 F.Supp. 147 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div.,1983) - Ohio has law prohibiting age discrimination and an authorized state authority to grant or seek relief from Ohio is “deferral discriminatory practice and, therefore, state” and 300-day limitation for filing charge with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was applicable. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 633(b); Ohio R.C. §§ 4112.01, 4112.02, 4112.05. Jackson v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co., 555 F.Supp. 80 (S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1982) - Title VII plaintiff in a “deferral” state has 300 days to file after alleged unlawful practice. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(d), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e); Ohio R.C. § 4112.05(B). Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 99 S.Ct. 2066 (U.S.,1979) - Though the Age Discrimination in Employment Act makes resort to administrative remedies mandatory in states with agencies empowered to remedy age a person aggrieved by discrimination in employment, alleged age discrimination is not required by the ADEA to commence the state proceedings within the time limit specified by state law. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, §§ 7(c), 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 626(c), 633(b). Nichols v. Muskingum College, 318 F.3d 674 (C.A.6.Ohio,2003) - Aggrieved person does not necessarily have to file a state charge within the state statute of limitations period to preserve the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 300-day filing period. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(d)(1) et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1). 80. The relief Newsome seeks through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” isMANDATORY and is NOT a discretionary action to be determined by the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission. As a matter of statutes/laws it is theMANDATORY duty of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to handle and processNewsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” In the OCRC May 9,2012 correspondence entitled, “Your Inquiry Regarding Potential Charge ofDiscrimination,” it advised Newsome that: Our agency, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, is the state administrative law enforcement agency that administers the Ohio Civil Page 32 of 59
  • 32. Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112, and we are RESPONSIBLE for INVESTIGATING charges of race, color, sex, national origin, military status, disability, age and religion discrimination in the areas of employment. . .Therefore, a reasonable person/mind may conclude that Newsome’s “OfficialComplaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” falls within the jurisdiction of the Ohio CivilRights Commission and has been TIMELY filed in accordance with the statutes/lawsgoverning said matters. Ramirez vs. National Distillers and Chemical Corp., 586 F.2d 1315 (9th Cir. 1978) – Where Commission has failed to refer employment discrimination charge to state agency as REQUIRED by this subchapter, district court should retain jurisdiction for period of time sufficient to allow Commission to notify appropriate state agency and to allow Commission to notify appropriate state agency and allow that agency STATUTORY DEFERRAL PERIOD in which to act. 81. Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” meets thepleading requirements for state and federal statutes/laws governing the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission’s deferral of matter to the Ohio Civil RightsCommission: (a) the acts in Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge OfDiscrimination” constitutes unlawful employment under state and federal lawsgoverning said matters; (b) the unlawful employment violations addressed inNewsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” violate a state and/orlocal law; and (c) there is an ESTABLISHED authorized agency – Ohio Civil RightsCommission – in the State of Ohio to remedy or seek criminal violation for the wrongscomplained on of Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Duke vs. University of Texas at El Paso, 663 F.2d 522 (5th Cir. 1981) – Three circumstances MUST exist before the referral requirement of this section is triggered; the acts alleged must constitute an unlawful employment under this subchapter, they must violate a state or local law, and the state or locality MUST have established or authorized some agency to remedy the violation or to seek criminal penalties. 82. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission ERRED in its failure to retainjurisdiction over Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination”alleging 180-day statute had expired with KNOWLEDGE and/or should have knownthat it was subject to the 240-day statute of limitations. Rasimas v. Michigan Dept. of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1983) - United States Supreme Court decision interpreting statutory Title VII filing requirement to preclude charges being filed with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in deferral states until 60 days after state fair employment agency has received notice of allegations may not be applied retroactively, and therefore instant action, where plaintiff initiated complaint with EEOC and state civil rights commission 244 days after he was terminated, was timely filed. Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 701 et seq., 706(b), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e et seq., 2000e-5(c). E.E.O.C. v. Dayton Tire & Rubber Co., 573 F.Supp. 782 (S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1983) - Ohio is a “deferral” state in which Page 33 of 59
  • 33. employees have 300 days following act of discrimination to file complaint with the EEOC. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(d), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e). 83. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in itsISSUANCE of “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” in that it KNEW that under federallaws that it was MANDATORILY required to DEFER Newsome’s “OfficialComplaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission forhandling and prosecution. Duke v. University of Texas at El Paso, 663 F.2d 522 (1981) - Three circumstances must exist before the referral requirement of Title VII is triggered; the acts alleged must constitute an unlawful employment practice under Title VII, they must violate a state or local law, and the state or locality must have established or authorized some agency to remedy the violation or to seek criminal penalties. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(b) as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e–5(c). [1] Section 706(b) of Title VII . . . “is intended to give state agencies a limited opportunity to resolve problems of employment discrimination and thereby to make unnecessary resort to federal relief by victims of the discrimination.” Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 755, 99 S.Ct. 2066, 2071, 60 L.Ed.2d 609 (1979). Three circumstances must exist before the referral requirement is triggered: (1) The acts alleged must constitute an unlawful employment practice under section 703 of Title VII; (2) they must violate a state or local law; and (3) the state or locality must have established or authorized some agency to remedy the violation or to seek criminal penalties. White v. Dallas Independent School District, 581 F.2d 556, 558-59 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc); 42 U.S.C.S. 2000e-5(c). Complainants themselves need not determine when these requirements are satisfied and file with state authorities. In Love v. Pullman, 404 U.S. 522, 92 S.Ct. 616, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972), the Supreme Court approved a “referral and deferral system” by which the EEOC refers complaints to the appropriate state agency when required. New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54, 64, 100 S.Ct. 2024, 2031, 64 L.Ed.2d 723 (1980). 84. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in itsFAILURE to MANDATORILY defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.Said FAILURE and NEGLIGENCE deprives any Court jurisdiction. Therefore, theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its issuance of “Dismissal andNotice of Rights” for FAILURE to defer as well as based on the fact that Newsome’s“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleges “AGE” discrimination.Therefore, MANDATORILY requiring that the EEOC defer Newsome’sComplaint/Charge to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission for handling and processing. Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc., 471 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio,1984) - State filing is a mandatory prerequisite to Age Discrimination in Employment Act action. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 14, 29 U.S.C.A. § 633. 85. As a direct and proximate result of the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission’s NEGLIGENCE and UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL handling of Newsome’s Page 34 of 59
  • 34. “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination,” she has injured/harmed. Moreover, Newsome suffers irreparable injury/harm as a direct and proximate result of the unlawful/illegal handling of her Complaint/Charge. 86. While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued an UNAUTHORIZED and unlawful/illegal “Dismissal and Notice of Rights,” it does NOT have any bearing on the COMMISSION Charge Newsome has requested be issued as a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result of the SYSTEMATIC discriminatory as well as SYSTEMATIC criminal/civil violations leveled AGAINST Newsome and have been set forth in “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Therefore, through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Newsome PRESERVES this ISSUE as well to assure that JUSTICE is served.29 CFR § 1601.28 (3) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY : . . . (3) Issuance of a notice of right to sue shall terminate further proceeding of any charge that is not a Commissioner charge unless the District Director; Field Director; Area Director; Local Director; Director of the Office of Field Programs or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs; or the General Counsel, determines at that time or at a later time that it would effectuate the purpose of title VII, the ADA, or GINA to further process the charge. Issuance of a notice of right to sue shall not terminate the processing of a Commissioner charge. (4) The issuance of a notice of right to sue does not preclude the Commission from offering such assistance to a person issued such notice as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate. 87. Newsome believes that the record evidence will further support that that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s acts are arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, it attempted through FALSE and MALICIOUS practices in the drafting of “Charges of Discrimination” attempted to COVER-UP its KNOWLEDGE of MANDATORY requirement(s) to defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as well as execute the proper proceedings regarding Newsome’s request that COMMISSION Charge issue for SYSTEMATIC Discrimination. 88. As a matter of Statutes/Laws governing said matters, Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” DEMANDS that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defer her “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. 89. Because of the PUBLIC/GLOBAL Interest in this matter, Newsome is DEMANDING that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTIFY the Ohio Civil Rights Commission of its duty to act on Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Furthermore, that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall notify the PUBLIC by PUBLICATION in the Federal Register as required by statutes/laws governing said matters. In the meantime, Newsome will be providing a copy of this pleading in PUBLIC/SOCIAL Forums (i.e. as the INTERNET) viewing. Page 35 of 59
  • 35. 29 CFR § 1601.70 FEP AGENCY Q UALIFICATIONS: (a) State and local fair employment practice agencies or authorities which qualify under section 706(c) of title VII and this section shall be designated as “FEP agencies.” The qualifications for designation under section 706(c) are as follows: (1) That the State or political subdivision has a fair employment practice law which makes unlawful employment practices based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability; and (2) That the State or political subdivision has either established a State or local authority or authorized an existing State or local authority that is empowered with respect to employment practices found to be unlawful, to do one of three things: To grant relief from the practice; to seek relief from the practice; or to institute criminal proceedings with respect to the practice. (b) Any State or local agency or authority seeking FEP agency designation should submit a written request to the Chairman of the Commission. However, if the Commission is aware that an agency or authority meets the above criteria for FEP agency designation, the Commission shall defer charges to such agency or authority even though no request for FEP agency designation has been made. (c) A request for FEP agency designation should include a copy of the agencys fair employment practices law and any rules, regulations and guidelines of general interpretation issued pursuant thereto. . .29 CFR § 1601.71 FEP AGENCY NOTIFICATION: (a) When the Commission determines that an agency or authority meets the criteria outlined in section 706(c) of title VII and §1601.70, the Commission shall so notify the agency by letter and shall notify the public by publication in the Federal Register of an amendment to §1601.74.V. OBJECTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S MAY 31, 2012 DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS 90. Through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Newsome PRESERVES this ISSUE and relies upon same to support TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY submitted “Objections to Employment Opportunity Commission’s May 31, 2012 Dismissal and Notice of Rights.” 91. Newsome furthermore, REITERATES her demand that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provide her with “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support its FAILURE to defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as well as “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to sustain its usurpation of authority and issuance of the “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” without Page 36 of 59
  • 36. deferring matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission which is a MANDATORY requirement under statutes/laws governing said matters. 92. Newsome further OBJECTS through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to execute the COMMISSIONER Charge requested of Newsome. Therefore, DEMANDS that COMMISSIONER Charge Issue IMMEDIATELY!VI. RESPONSE TO OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION’S LETTER DATED MAY 9, 2012 REGARDING “YOUR INQUIRY REGARDING POTENTIAL CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION 93. For purposes of PRESERVATION of this ISSUE, in regards to “Response to Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s Letter Dated May 9, 2012 Regarding ‘Your Inquiry Regarding Potential Charge of Discrimination,” Newsome incorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein Paragraphs 1 through 92 of this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” 94. Newsome furthermore, through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” DEMANDS that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission provide her PROOF of filing of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” – i.e. Charge/Complaint Number(s) assigned.VII. REQUEST FOR STATUS OF COMMISSION CHARGE TO ISSUE29 CFR § 1601.6 SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION: (a) The Commission shall receive information concerning alleged violations of Title VII, the ADA, or GINA from any person. Where the information discloses that a person is entitled to file a charge with the Commission, the appropriate office shall render assistance in the filing of a charge. Any person or organization may request the issuance of a Commissioner charge for an inquiry into individual or systematic discrimination. Such request, with any pertinent information, should be submitted to the nearest District, Field, Area, or Local office. (b) A person who submits data or evidence to the Commission may retain or, on payment of lawfully prescribed costs, procure a copy of transcript thereof, except that a witness may for good cause be limited to inspection of the official transcript of his or her testimony. 95. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” REITERATES her request that COMMISSIONER Charge ISSUE in regards to claims/allegations set Page 37 of 59
  • 37. forth in “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” in that Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusion set forth therein supports SYSTEMATICE Discriminatory practices; moreover CONTINUING Discriminatory practices which are motivated by criminal intent and discriminatory practices. 96. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” request that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provide her with the RESPONDENTS’ Answers to “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”VIII. 2ND REQUEST TO BE ADVISED OF ALL “CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS 97. For the PRESERVATION this ISSUE, Newsome, through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .,” hereby for the SECOND TIME request that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission advise her of any/all “CONFLICTS-OF-INTERESTS” that exist in the handling of her “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” CONCLUSION Newsome believes that as a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result of the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commissions SYSTEMATIC Discriminatory Practices in thehandling of Complaints brought by Newsome, it ENCOURAGED and/or ALLOWED suchWHITE RACIST Employers as The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. and MessinaStaffing/Messina Management Systems and their Legal Counsel/Advisors to CONSPIREwith such TERRORIST Law Firms as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz andits CLIENTS to go on to COMMIT more HIDEOUS Criminal Actions that may haveresulted in MURDER! In support thereof, Newsome state the following: LIKE “ALL” CAREER CRIMINALS (SUCH AS BAKER DONELSON) WHEN THEY ARE NOT STOPPED, THEY GO ON TO COMMIT ONE CRIME TOO MANY WHICH LEADS TO THEIR DOWNFALL!” A) Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”) is Legal Counsel/Advisor to United States of America Page 38 of 59
  • 38. President Barack Obama and is Legal Counsel/Advisor to past United States of America Presidents REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRAT (i.e. for instance Ronald Reagan/where it appears Baker Donelson occupied and ran the White House with knowledge that President Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimer; William “Bill” Clinton, and George W. Bush). In other words, Baker Donelson, it appears, NEVER leaves and CONTROLS and run the White House, CONGRESS and SUPREME Court: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield-patents http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875f626f789ea2 Howard Baker: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-howard- baker-wiki-infoB) Baker Donelson making itself known to Newsome through the 1999 (EMPHASIS Added) Lawsuit brought by Newsome against Entergy Services, Inc. – Newsome vs. Entergy Services, Inc.: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-33-docket-sheet-entergy A lawsuit in which it appears Baker Donelson TOOK A SHELLACKING that it had to relying upon relationships to the Judges/Justices assigned (i.e. which includes the Supreme Court of the United States of America) to THROW the Lawsuit through the use of BRIBES, BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, COERCION, etc. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-ties-to- judgesjustices-as-of120911 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-7-judge-g-thomas- porteous-impeachment Judge G. Thomas Porteous was IMPEACHED and removed from the bench; however, this is information that President Barack Obama and CONGRESS wants to keep out of the Media.C) FAILURE to act on the CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs reported by Newsome in the handling of the Newsome vs. Entergy matter it appears allowed for Baker Donelson and its CLIENTS (i.e. United States of America PRESIDENTS and United States of America CONGRESS: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield-patents to go on approximately TWO (2) Years later and carry out more HIDEOUS CRIMINAL acts on September 11, 2001 “DOMESTIC” Terrorists Attacks on the World Trade Center Buildings and alleged other TARGETS that day.D) Failure to act resulting in Newsome filing an OFFICIAL Complaint with the United States Department of Justice AGAINST Baker Page 39 of 59
  • 39. Donelson and those with whom they CONSPIRED to carry out CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled against Newsome: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-34-091704-petition- seekingintervention-entergymatterE) FALURE to act resulted in one of the MOST Horrific PONZI Scams in History – Bernard “Bernie” Madoff Ponzi Scheme/Scam. Bernie Madoff appears to be a client of Baker Donelson. Bernie Madoff is a client of J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank is a TOP/KEY/MAJOR Client of Baker Donelson: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487036521045761223 00990479090.html http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/madoff-bernie-info http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/garretson-resolution-group- bernie-madoff-settlement-payouts It appears that Baker Donelson relied upon Ties/Relationships with the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the United States of America’s Congress to COVER-UP and DESTROY evidence: http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875f676e7da3a5 Now the PUBLIC/WORLD may see for themselves how and WHY it appears Bernie Madoff was able to carry off his CRIMINAL practices UNPUNISHED for so many years.F) FAILURE to act resulted in Baker Donelson and its Clients (i.e. United States of America President Barack Obama, United States Department of Justice, United States Department of Treasury and other CONSPIRATORS) to target Newsome and ATTACK her for purposes of her RELEASING documents to the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE/WORLD! For instance in RETALIATION to Newsome’s July 13, 2010 Email to President Barack Obama and those in his Administration entitled, "U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: THE DOWNFALL/DOOM OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION - Corruption/Conspiracy/Cover-Up/Criminal Acts Made Public" http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071310-email-toobamaholder Newsome was subjected to RETALIATORY and CRIMINAL practices approximately FOUR (4) Days later when United States of America President Barack Obama had his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson and members of his Administration go after Newsome’s Bank Account(s) with J.P. Morgan Chase Bank for “CHILD SUPPORT:” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071710-kydorjp- morganchasedocs Page 40 of 59
  • 40. In so doing United States of America President Barack Obama and those withwhom he CONSPIRED “EMBEZZLED” monies and committed otherCRIMINAL/CIVIL violations leveled against Newsome. Furthermore, recordevidence SUPPORTS that Newsome’s July 13, 2010 email appears to have leadto Baker Donelson and its Clients (i.e. President Barack Obama, CONGRESS,etc.) to begin the PROCESS of COVERING up the LIES theUnited States of America told regarding its “DOMESTIC”Terrorists Attacks on its OWN Citizens and others and theFRAMING of others for its TERRORISTS Acts – i.e. COMMONand WELL-ESTABLISHED practices by Corrupt GovernmentOfficials. An example of this is the Pat Tillman matter. Had Mr. Tillman nothad a family who was DETERMINED to get to the TRUTH the United Statesof America Government may have blamed the OUT-RIGHT-KILLING/MURDER of Pat Tillman (i.e. with THREE (3) Gunshots to hisHEAD) on the Taliban or Al Qaeda. The United States of America’s Militarytried to COVER UP its KILLING/MURDER of PatTillman by DESTROYING EVIDENCE – i.e. a Pattern-Of-Practice by Baker Donelson, the United States of America MILITARY, UnitedStates of America PRESIDENTS, United States of America CONGRESS andthose with whom they CONSPIRE: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pat-tillman-wikipedia-infoRecord evidence supports that in efforts of Baker Donelson, United States ofAmerica President Barack Obama/his Administration and the United States of claiming to have located Osama BinAmerica CongressLaden in August 2010 – i.e. based on timing,APPROXIMATELY THE NEXT MONTH AFTERNewsome’s July 13, 2010 Email. Page 41 of 59
  • 41. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama-050111- speechosama-binladen Clearly they could see the “HANDWRITING ON THE WALL” and the need to now move forward and “KILL the LIES” the United States of America is telling regarding the 911 Attacks.G) Failure to act resulted in on or about October 9, 2010, Newsome submitting to the Supreme Court of the United States of America her pleading entitled, "Emergency Motion To Stay; Emergency Motion For Enlargement Of Time and Other Relief The United States Supreme Court Deems Appropriate To Correct The Legal Wrongs/Injustices Reported Herein." http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/100910-emergency-motion It appears that based upon this pleading Baker Donelson and its Clients (i.e. United States of America President Barack Obama, Congress and other CONSPIRATORS/ CO-CONSPIRATORS) moved forward to “KILL OFF” people they believed to be a THREAT in exposing their Terrorists Acts and/or considered DISPOSABLE witnesses and having KNOWLEDGE behind the TRUTH behind the 911 Attacks and other HIDEOUS Criminal Acts of the United States of America’s Government: Page 42 of 59
  • 42. Apparently, based on information found, the following people appear to havebeen placed on Baker Donelson’s, United States of America President BarackObama’s and former President George W. Bush’s “KILL LIST:” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama-secret-kill-list-13166139President Barack Obama’s creation and use of an UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL“Kill List” has recently made the News.Furthermore, it may further support what appears to be Baker Donelson’s andUnited States of America President Barack Obama’s role in the August 6, Page 43 of 59
  • 43. 2011 “KILLING/MURDER” of Navy Seals claimed tobe members out of the SAME Unit (Seal 6) that was inthe alleged May 1, 2011 killing/murder of Osama BinLaden. It is OBVIOUS that these Navy Seals may have beenKILLED/MURDERED based on their KNOWLEDGE of the May 1, 2011LIES and for purposes of SILENCING them. Killings/Murders of these NavySeals were blamed on the Taliban: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy-seal-helicopter-shot- down-080611 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy-seal-helicopter-down- 080611 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-insurgents-killed- navy-sealThen the United States of America moved SWIFTLY alleging to havekilled/murdered the Terrorist responsible – i.e in other words, “CLEANINGUP LOOSE ENDS!” Page 44 of 59
  • 44. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-insurgents- killednavy-seals-matterDON’T forget the United States of America Military’sPractices and “CREATING OF DOCUMENTS” toCOVER UP and support its CRIMINAL ACTS!Remember the PAT TILLMAN COVER-UP: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pat-tillman-wikipedia-infoUsing the United States of America’s Citizens TAXES to pay for theirTERRORISTS Acts: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-paid-360-million-us- tax-dollars http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-us-paysterrorist2Baker Donelson and United States of America President Barack Obama/hisAdministration it appears used the United States of America Navy Sealsbecause Baker Donelson’s employee Raymond Maybus serves as Secretary ofthe Navy: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-wikipedia- info http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mabus-raymondwiki-info http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mabus-raymondemploy-tiesThe PUBLIC-AT-LARGE/WORLD needs to know this information so they canbetter understand why there was NEVER any “LIVE” Footage ofthe alleged Killing/Murder of Osama Bin Laden and “ALL”accounts of the LIES about the Killing/Murder of Osama Bin Laden were“CREATED” on a COMPUTER! It is important to understand why the PAKISTAN Government mayhave really been upset about the LIES the United States of America PresidentBarack Obama and his Administration told about Osama Bin Laden beingfound at the alleged Abbottabad, Pakistan Compound. Pakistan being a countrythat the United States of America began paying approximately $2 BILLIONDollars a year shortly AFTER the 911 Attacks: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-united-states-relationsIt appears Pakistan may now be upset because the United States of AmericaBREACHED its Agreement with it and now has attempted to FRAME Pakistanfor hiding Osama Bin Laden on its soil when they have KNOWLEDGE thatOsama Bin Laden was NOT there; nevertheless, going along for fears of losingthe BLOOD/BLACKMAIL MONIES (i.e. approximately $2 BILLION Dollars)that the United States Of America has been paying it to keep their LIES alive! Page 45 of 59
  • 45. The United States of America, based on information provided by Newsome, KNEW that it had to “KILL the LIE” regarding Osama Bin Laden and those with whom they considered could EXPOSE the 911 “DOMESTIC” Terrorists Attacks of the United States of America CORRUPT Government Officials involved. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-obl-has-been- dead-for-seven-years http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-obl-has-been- dead-for-yearsH) Failure to act has resulted in what appears to be Baker Donelson and its Clients (i.e. United States of America White House/President Barack Obama/his Administration and the United States of America CONGRESS and those with whom they CONSPIRE) engaging in UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL acts which involved the EMBEZZLEMNT of United States of America TAXPAYERS’ Dollars to COVER-UP their CRIMINAL ACTS. Then Baker Donelson engaging the United States of America White House/Presidents and the CONGRESS to push through its BAILOUT Packages regarding BANKS, Housing Industry and Automobile Industry. For instance look at the FINANCIAL Institutions which have benefitted from Baker Donelson CONTROL – i.e. names as BENEFACTORS such as J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, and MANY more of Baker Donelson’s Clients are clearly on this list: http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70668a5d606dad73afI) Failure to act has resulted in Baker Donelson moving its operations into Florida – i.e. in PREPARATION of the November 2012 Presidential Elections: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-expands- intoflorida2 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-expands- intoflorida When Florida A & M University (“FAMU”) had a loss of one of its Band Members (Robert Champion) in or about November 2011, it appears Baker Donelson, United States of America President Barack Obama, the United States of America Congress and their CONSPIRATORS/CO- CONSPIRATORS having KNOWLEDGE that Newsome is a FAMU Alumni resorted to OVERKILL in the MEDIA COVERAGE of this tragedy and attempted to use it to DIVIDE and/or cause DIVISION in the FAMU Family. However, they were DISAPPOINTED when the FAMU Family UNITED TOGETHER and WITHSTOOD such attacks to take down FAMU’s President (James Ammons) and FAMU! Was the CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST (i.e. Baker Donelson’s Page 46 of 59
  • 46. ROLE and Ties/Relationships to the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation [“FBI”]/Prosecutors/Governor) in thehandling of Investigations leveled against FAMU madeKNOWN to the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE? NO! It appearsBaker Donelson RECRUITING Florida Governor Rick Scott to carry out theirRACIST/DISCRIMINATORY attacks – i.e. in that NO WhiteLARGE/FAMOUS University (i.e. University of Georgia, Indiana StateUniversity, University of Tennessee, University of Miami, etc.) that may haveexperienced a similar tragedy received such MASSIVE, EXCESSIVE andOVERWHELMING Coverage as the FAMU incident: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/hazing-deaths-at-universitiesUnited States of America President Barack Obama, his WhiteRacist/Supremacist Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson and those withwhom they conspired, FAILED to release to the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE/WORLD their ROLE in the CONSPIRACIES to destroy FAMU.Therefore, Newsome took the initiative to go PUBLIC/GLOBAL and EXPOSEthis FIRST alleged BLACK-American/HOUSE-Negro President (BarackObama) living in “UNCLE TOM’S CABIN” with his UNDERCOVER KuKlux Klan Legal Team Baker Donelson. BAKER DONELSON = SUPREMACIST: A person who believes in or advocates the supremacy of a particular group, esp. a racial group. One who believes that a certain group is or should be supreme. Somebody who holds the view that a particular group is innately superior to others and therefore, is entitled to dominate them. Baker Donelson is a White Supremacist Group and believes that it is SUPERIOR and better than any other racial group. It believes that it is SUPREME and that all other races are INFERIOR to it. It holds the MENATLITY that ALL RACES and COUNTRIES are Inferior to the United States and therefore, is entitled to be DOMINATED and CRUSHED by the United States powers/forces. Baker Donelson takes the position of SUPERIORITY or AUTHORITY over all others and is EVIDENCED through its ADVERTISEMENTS on the Internet. Page 47 of 59
  • 47. Newsome releasing her January 10, 2012 “NOTIFICATION FOR TERMINATION - REQUEST FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II – RESPONSE TO THE ATTACKS ON FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING ALLEGED HAZING INCIDENT – REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL MILITARY INTERVENTION MAY BE NECESSARY” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/022712-updated-links-for- obama-eviction-notice-011012final Along with “PINK SLIP!” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/011012-pink-slip-president-barack-obamasigned Which was LEGALLY and properly served on United States of America President Barack Obama with copies to United States of America Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and United States of America Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael G. Mullen. Nevertheless, United States of America President Barack Obama attempted to COVER-UP evidence of being served by having the “Certified Mail Return Receipt” GREEN Card DESTROYED! It was ONLY AFTER Newsome’s going PUBLIC/GLOBAL and advising of President Barack Obama’s CRIMINAL activities – i.e. Mail Tampering, etc. - that it appears he had the GREEN Card TAPED back together and returned to Newsome. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/011012-usps-mailing- receipts-green-cardreturnedJ) Failure to act has resulted in what appears to be Baker Donelson and its Clients (i.e. United States of America President Barack Obama and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and those with whom they CONSPIRE) going on to commit other HIDEOUS crimes which affects/impacts the ECONOMY by CONTINUING to engage in CRIMINAL Acts and making RISKY and UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL financial transactions as the recent J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK Scandal : http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/jp-morgan-chasebank- scandal-3 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/jp-morgan-chasebank- scandal http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-expands- intoflorida http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-florida- governorship-history Page 48 of 59
  • 48. Again, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank is one of Baker Donelson’s TOP/KEY/ MAJOR Clients. Continued PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE by Baker Donelson and its client J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. CRIMINAL Activities in which they have been SUCCESSFUL in bringing DOWN Governments and making “PERSONAL” Financial Gains for themselves while their VICTIMS SUFFER: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-jp-morgan- chasebaddealingsinfo-swapK) Failure to act has resulted in what appears to be Baker Donelson and its Clients (i.e. United States of America President Barack Obama and Morgan Stanley and those with whom they CONSPIRE) going on to commit other HIDEOUS crimes which affects/impacts the ECONOMY by CONTINUING to engage in CRIMINAL Acts and making RISKY and FINANCIAL BUSINESS transactions as the recent FACEBOOK Debacle: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/morgan-stanley-facebook-sued http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/morgan-stanley-facebook These CAREER Criminals will attempt to “THROW MARK ZUCKERBERG TO THE WOLVES AS ITS SACRIFICIAL GOAT;” however, it appears Baker Donelson and Morgan Stanley are the PUPPETMASTERS! Yes, Morgan Stanley is also one of Baker Donelson’s TOP/KEY Clients: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-morgan- stanley http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-morgan- stanleyunderwritingL) Failure to act has resulted in what appears to be Baker Donelson and its Clients (BIG MONEY Investors and CONSPIRATORS/CO- Page 49 of 59
  • 49. CONSPIRATORS) looking at ways to pull their monies out of the Stock Markets and moving to U.S. Treasury Bonds while they “Sit back and LAUGH” at their MASTERPIECE – the GLOBAL DEMISE/ECONOMIC TAKEDOWN – and employees hopelessly watching the WIPEOUT of their 401Ks: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/investors-chasing-us-bonds http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/investors-chasing-cheaper- havensM) Failure to act may have resulted in Baker Donelson, United States of America President Barack Obama, the United States of America’s CONGRESS and those with whom the CONSPIRE engaging in further TERRORISTS Acts and “BOMBING” a Jetliner! Newsome believes that had it NOT been for her filing of the April 30, 2012 Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint/Ohio Civil Rights Commission Complaint wherein she ADDRESSES the CONTINUED Terrorists acts of Baker Donelson, United States of America President Barack Obama and their CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS, these CAREER Criminals would have moved forward to BOMB a Jetliner of INNOCENT Victims – i.e. probably appearing on President Barack Obama’s KILL LIST! WHY? It appears for purposes of “INSTILLING FEAR” in American Citizens because 2012 is a PRESIDENTIAL Election Year and Baker Donelson and United States of America President Barack Obama and those with whom they CONSPIRE are thinking that FEAR will place President Obama back in the White House for a SECOND Term because Americans may not want a NEW President in a “Time of Crisis!” In other words, the May 1, 2011 LIE about the killing/murder of Osama Bin Laden has been EXPOSED; therefore, President Barack Obama know that any such claims have FALTERED! While a LIE, United States of America President Barack Obama is now being SLAMMED by the Navy Seals: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy-seals-slam- obamaN) Failure to act resulted in Baker Donelson’s CONTROL of JUSTICES in the Supreme Court of the United States of America getting the ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission which has allowed for CAREER CRIMINALS as Baker Donelson and its Counterpart CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS who have HIJACKED the United States of America Government to “CARRY OUT DOMESTIC TERRORISTS ACTS” not only against United States of America Citizens but TERRORISTS Attacks on FOREIGN Nations/Countries and their Citizens. Now they are Page 50 of 59
  • 50. attempting to use the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commissiondecision to MASK/HIDE their BIG MONEY INFLUENCES to HIJACK the2012 Presidential Elections through the use of BRIBES, BLACKMAIL,EXTORTION, CORRUPTION and INTIMIDATION masked as “SUPERPACS!”Approximately ONE (1) Year out, Baker Donelson moving intoFlorida (i.e. considered one of the KEY Battlegrounds) and it is WELLUNDER WAY in taking this State DOWN through the use of Florida GovernorRick Scott (i.e. another CAREER Criminal with DIRTY HANDS). http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/rick-scott-wikipedia-infoBaker Donelson it appears has TIES/HISTORY with Florida Governorship: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-florida- governorship-historyThe Florida Governor being used by Baker Donelson and theirCONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS it appears for leveling ATTACKSon Florida A&M University and COVER-UP of the “FIRST-DEGREE/PREMEDIATED” Murder of Trayvon Martin is just the “TIP-OF-THE-ICEBERG” for Baker Donelson, United States of America PresidentBarack Obama, United States of America CONGRESS [i.e. with a Senate withis approximately 100% WHITE and House of Representatives approximately90% WHITE]. This is how WHITE RACIST/SUPREMACIST Law Firms asBaker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz operate and remain HIDDENfrom PUBLIC/GLOBAL view. However, Newsome has come forward and is“YANKING OFF THEIR KU KLUX KLAN HOODS” The following PowerPoint Presentation was created in PowerPoint 2010 - FREE Download: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/try It may be viewed better using the Firefox Browser – FREE Download: http://www.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/new/?from=sfx&uid=290713&t=478 PowerPoint Presentation: http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70658660627475ae6cso that the WORLD can see for themselves who the United States of AmericaTERRORISTS are and where they are HIDING! Moreover, it isIMPORTANT to understand why it is that AFRICAN-Americans, People of Color and MUSLIMS have come underattacks and are being FRAMED for the Terrorists Acts carriedout by WHITE RACIST/SUPREMACIST Groups as BakerDonelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and the United States Page 51 of 59
  • 51. of America’s CONGRESS. Who AUTHORIZES the Terrorists Wars of the United States of America? The United States of America Who is Presidents and the United States of America’s CONGRESS. Legal Counsel/Advisor to the United States of America President and United States of America Congress? Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield-patentsO) Failure to act it appears has resulted in Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz’ and those with whom it conspires creation of a DISCRIMINATORY Supreme Court of the United States of America which requirement appears to be that one has to be either JEWISH and/or CATHOLIC: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/alito-samuel-wikipedia-info http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/sotomayor-sonia-wikipedia-info-11693471 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/kennedy-anthony-wikipedia-info http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ginsburg-ruth-bader-wikipedia-info http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/justice-john-g-roberts-wikipedia-info http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/breyer-stephen-wikipedia-info Page 52 of 59
  • 52. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/kagan-elena-wikipedia-info http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/thomas-clarence-wikipedia-info http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/scalia-antonin-wikipedia-info P) Here are instances of how it appears Baker Donelson and its CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS engages in TERRORIST acts:REITERATING FOR FOREIGN TRANSLATION PURPOSES: WHO IS BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC? MEET THEM: BAKER DONELSON = 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. Baker Donelson. . .is an ORGANIZED White Supremacist Group that has relied upon its power, positions and CONTROL over the United States Government to UNLAWFULLY use and THREATEN use of FORCE or VIOLENCE against people (i.e. such as Newsome, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) or property with the intention of INTIMIDATING or COERCING societies or governments for EVIL/WICKED and POLITICAL POWER/GAIN. Page 53 of 59
  • 53. REITERATING FOR FOREIGN TRANSLATION PURPOSES: BAKER DONELSON = DOMESTIC TERRORISM: Terrorism that occurs primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States [18 USCA § 2331(5)]. Terrorism that is carried out AGAINST ones OWN Government or FELLOW CITIZENS. This is what happened on 9/11 (September 11, 2001) - Under the DIRECTION/LEADERSHIP/CONTROL of its Legal Counsel/Advisors (i.e. Baker Donelson, etc.), President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney, the United States Congress/Legislature, etc. carried out one of the MOST HORRIFIC Crimes on United States soil - - the bombing of its OWN "World Trade Centers" and the DOWNING of its OWN Passenger Jets on United States soil which cost the lives of MANY. . .MANY. . .Innocent people/citizens. 9/11 was a TERRORIST Act carried out by Baker Donelson, the United States Government and other CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS against its OWN Country. 9/11 WAS NOT the acts of the man claimed to be Osama Bin Laden. 9/11 was the United States Government and was done to INSTILL Fear in the United States citizens to provide TERRORIST Groups like Baker Donelson and the United States Government, etc. with an EXCUSE to INVADE Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and other countries under FALSE PRETENSE - to UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY take control of their RESOURCES: Oil, Gas, Gold, Coal, Monies, Lands, etc. Page 54 of 59
  • 54. REITERATING FOR FOREIGN TRANSLATION PURPOSES: BAKER DONELSON = 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. Page 55 of 59
  • 55. REITERATING FOR FOREIGN TRANSLATION PURPOSES: BAKER DONELSON = 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. Terrorist Groups as Baker Donelson/United States Presidents/United States Government and their CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS for Decades/Years have taken their TERRORIST acts OUTSIDE the United States INTO Foreign Countries/Lands - - for purposes of DESTROYING lives, INTIMIDATION, COERCION/THREATS/FEAR, OPPRESSION and CONTROL- - where such Terrorist Groups as Baker Donelson/United States Government, etc. OPERATE to seek asylum and set up CAMPS/FORTS to SURVEY their Targets/Victims that they seek to OVERTHROW. Page 56 of 59
  • 56. REITERATING FOR FOREIGN TRANSLATION PURPOSES: BAKER DONELSON = TERRORIST: One who engage in acts or an act of terrorism. Somebody who uses VIOLENCE or the THREAT of violence, especially BOMBING, KIDNAPPING, and ASSASSINATION, to INTIMIDATE, often for POLITICAL purposes. Terrorist Groups as Baker Donelson/United States Presidents/United States Government and their CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS have engaged in acts of TERRORISM. They have not ONLY subjected Newsome to VIOLENCE, THREATS and having her KIDNAPPED, etc. but have used such TERRORIST acts not only in the PAST but now in the PRESENT in its ASSASSINATIONS of: (1) Former Presidents Abraham Lincoln; (2) Former President John F. Kennedy; (3) President Kennedys brother Robert Kennedy; (4) Civil Rights Leader Malcolm X; (5) Civil Rights Leader Medgar Evers; (6) Civil Rights Leader Martin Luther King Jr., and MANY others who OPPOSED Slavery, OPPRESSION, BONDAGE and sought to move the United States forward RATHER than back to the Past as Baker Donelson and the United States Government is trying to do now. To INSTILL FEAR in people and a TOOL of CONTROL/INTIMIDATION, these people were ASSASSINATED for political purposes/power. Page 57 of 59
  • 57. REITERATING FOR FOREIGN TRANSLATION PURPOSES: BAKER DONELSON = TERRORIST/RACIST: Attempts to CHANGE THE FACES/WIPE OUT THE FACES of the African-American Male from what they think are TOO BLACK (Malcolm X, Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King Jr.) to get “WHITE America” to accept them by focusing on the INTERRACIAL (those Baker Donelson think will be easily accepted if they appear WHITE) – U.S. President Barack Obama; United States Attorney General Eric Holder and NAACP President/CEO Benjamin Jealous. In the days of SLAVERY these are the faces of what were known as “HOUSE NEGROS” . . . or the product of the WILLIE LYNCH Practices. LIKE “ALL” CAREER CRIMINALS WHEN THEY ARE NOT STOPPED, THEY GO ON TO COMMIT ONE CRIME TOO MANY WHICH LEADS TO THEIR DOWNFALL!” It is like Noah when he warned the people of the “IMPENDING FLOOD TOCOME.” The people just LAUGHED and MOCKED him – i.e. perhaps callinghim crazy, a lunatic, paranoid, etc. However, in the END, Noah and his family had the Page 58 of 59
  • 58. LAST LAUGH in that his obedience to GOD and the building of the Ark, spared himand his family from the DISASTER that God had told Noah was to come. On orabout July 13, 2010, United States of America President Barack Obama, his LegalCounsel/Advisor Baker Donelson, his Administration, and members of the United States of AmericaCONGRESS were made aware of the IMPENDING/INEVITABLE“DOWNFALL/DOOM OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION -Corruption/Conspiracy/Cover-Up/Criminal Acts Made Public” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071310-email-toobamaholderNevertheless, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz along with its Clients -United States of America President Barack Obama and members of his Administration andthe United States of America CONGRESS - elected to RETALIATE AGAINST Newsomeand come after her Bank Account(s) and Job(s) for purposes of SILENCING her andFINANCIALLY devastating her so that Newsome is NOT able to WARN thePUBLIC-AT-LARGE/FOREIGN Nations and their Leaders/Citizens . approximately ONE (1) Year from Newsome’s July 13,Nevertheless,2010 WARNING, the United States of America SUFFERED itsFIRST “Downgrade” and will continue to FALL! The UnitedStates of America has FALLEN from its NO. 1 holding as Chinaand other countries are SURGING forward! NOW look at theGLOBAL ECONOMIC DEMISE! Respectfully Submitted By: _____________________________________ Vogel Denise Newsome Post Office Box 14731 Cincinnati, Ohio 45250 (513) 680-2922 or (601) 885-9536 Page 59 of 59