Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
This is a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of an Employee’s ENGAGEMENT in CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs
with Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berk...
I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S B A T ^ ^ ^ C ^ T C Y C O U R T
S O U T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F ' M I S S I S S I P ...
Page 1 of 28
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
IN RE:
LADYE M. TOWNSEND CHAPTER 7
DEB...
Page 2 of 28
must dismiss such entity from the adversary proceeding.
Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7019(1).
Mississippi Case: Rice v. McM...
Page 3 of 28
of litigation, etc. and is filed to protect and preserve the rights of Newsome
secured/guaranteed under the U...
Page 4 of 28
6. As a matter of law, the United States District Court – Southern District of
Mississippi (Jackson Division)...
Page 5 of 28
NOTE: Information taken from Newsome’s SLIDESHARE Social Forum -
www.SlideShare.net/VogelDenise
8. PLEASE BE ...
Page 6 of 28
FACTS and EVIDENCE of the CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS that precludes
Judge Guirola from acting and NEITHER is Newso...
Page 7 of 28
9. Newsome believes given the facts, evidence and legal conclusions not only in
this Bankruptcy matter, but t...
Page 8 of 28
10. It appears that Townsend and her counsel are attempting to get this Court to
usurp jurisdiction over this...
Page 9 of 28
Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. via ELECTRONIC Filing; however, the Motion to Dismiss to which said
proposed Order su...
Page 10 of 28
Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order
(b) GROUNDS FOR RELIEF FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR
PROCEEDING....
Page 11 of 28
However the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of
Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, ...
Page 12 of 28
during said hearing, Judge Edward Ellington advised Newsome of additional
information that the Court needed....
Page 13 of 28
19. TO DATE (July 14, 2014), Newsome has NOT been served with the Motion to
Dismiss that this Court’s June 2...
Page 14 of 28
23. Such FRAUDULENT and CRIMINAL Acts by Debtor Townsend’s Counsel
Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney...
Page 15 of 28
26. The Anna Louise Inn Lawsuit was filed AGAINST Newsome on or about MAY
28, 2014!
So WHEN did Counsel for ...
Page 16 of 28
27. On or about JUNE 27, 2014, the court in the Anna Louise Inn Matter set for
hearing Newsome’s Motion to D...
Page 17 of 28
28. This is IMPORTANT/RELEVANT information because the ANNA LOUISE
SCANDAL is DIRECTLY LINKED to the Scandal...
Page 18 of 28
29. In Newsome’s May 22, 2011 pleading entitled, “Creditor Vogel Newsome’s
Opposition/Response to 5/11/11 Di...
Page 19 of 28
30. Yes, with CRIMINAL LAWYERS as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz at the HELM OF THE SHIP in the...
Page 20 of 28
Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 F.3d
357 (5th
Cir. 2004) - The “unclean hands doct...
Page 21 of 28
reasonable mind may conclude the necessary tools to determine whether the
advice given her was lawful or whe...
Page 22 of 28
WHEREFORE, Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. did KNOWINGLY and
WILLINGLY commit FRAUD UPON THE COURT ...
Page 23 of 28
must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner,
associate, or employee.
(2) Motio...
Page 24 of 28
evidentiary support throughout the proceedings only underscored
the violation.
(n. 4) Both client and attorn...
Page 25 of 28
42. Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney KNEW that
he/it was ENGAGING in FRAUDULENT pr...
Page 26 of 28
Creditor Newsome to continue to PURSUE other
CRIMINAL/CIVIL prosecution in other matters.
Marlin v. Moody Na...
INJURED/HARMED and DEPRIVED for Consritutional and Civil Rights to
CONTEST the Motion to Dismiss because Opposing Coimsel ...
C E R T I F I C A T E O F SERNTCE
The undersigned hereby cerdfies that a true and correct copy of the forgoing pleading wa...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

07/14/14 - RULE 60 & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY Matter

210

Published on

See if you can see the NEXUS/CONNECTION/RELATIONSHIP with the Anna Louise Inn Scandal/Lawsuit and Ladye Margaret Townsend's BANKRUPTCY Action. If NOT, we are going to show the PUBLIC/WORLD the PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL practices that have United States of America's President Barack Obama's and his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz' PARTICIPATION all OVER IT!

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
210
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "07/14/14 - RULE 60 & SANCTION MOTION(S) - Ladye Margaret Townsend BANKRUPTCY Matter"

  1. 1. This is a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of an Employee’s ENGAGEMENT in CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs with Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (Legal Counsel for President Barack Obama, Congress, Supreme Court, etc.) such as RACE DISCRIMINATION, LYING DURING FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS, etc. Then when they are SUED in their INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES as Ladye Margaret Townsend, they want to go and file BANKRUPTCY in attempts to get out of PAYING for their CRIMINAL/CIVIL VIOLATIONS! Now if Vogel Denise Newsome is NOT ALLOWING the FIRST ALLEGED Black-American President Barack Obama’s CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs not to be EXPOSED, WHY would Ladye Margaret Townsend and her attorney Robert Rex McRaney Jr. think that Newsome would SPARE them the EXPOSURE they RIGHTFULLY DESERVE!
  2. 2. I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S B A T ^ ^ ^ C ^ T C Y C O U R T S O U T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F ' M I S S I S S I P P I i U U L |t4 AH 9 : 5 C IN R E : j - ^ , , , , , L A D Y E M . T O W N S E N D < ~ C H A P T E R 7 DEBTOR B Y D E P U W C A S E N O . 11-00167-ee C R E D I T O R ' S ( V O G E L N E W S O M E ) M O T I O N F O R R E L I E F F R O M O R D E R / J U D G E M E N T ; M O T I O N F O R R U L E 11 S A N C T I O N S O F AND A G A I N S T R O B E R T R E X M C R A N E Y J R . / M C R A N E Y & M C R A N E Y ; AND R E Q U E S T T O B E A D V I S E D O F C O N F L I C T - O F I N T E R E S T S ^ COMES N O W Creditor Vogel Newsome ("Newsome") without waiving her rights, without submitting to the jurisdiction of this Court, without waiving the defenses and claims set forth in her: (a) "Creditor's Opposition/Response to Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines and Motion to be Dismissed, from Action " - Docket 10 - and (b) "Creditor Vogel Newsome's Opposition/Response to 5/11/11 Discharge of Debtor; Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and Vacating of Discharge of Debtor" - Docket 20 - and files this her "Creditor's (Vogel Newsome) Motion for Relief From. Order/Judgment; Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Robert Rex McRaney Jr./McRaney & McRaney; and Request To Be Advised Of Conflict-Of Interests" ("CMFRFO/J") pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"), FRCP Rule 11; FRCP Rule 12(G) - consohdation of matters - and odier statutes/laws governing said matters. In support thereof, Newsome states the following: L L A C K O F J U R I S D I C T I O N : There is authority that dismissal of a bankruptcy case does not mandate dismissal of all pending adversary proceedings. However, i f an entity joined as a party in an adversary proceeding raised the defense that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and that defense is sustained, the court ' NOTE: Boldface, italics and underline, etc. represents "emphasis" added. Page I of 2 ^
  3. 3. Page 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI IN RE: LADYE M. TOWNSEND CHAPTER 7 DEBTOR CASE NO. 11-00167-ee CREDITOR’S (VOGEL NEWSOME) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER/JUDGEMENT; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST ROBERT REX MCRANEY JR./MCRANEY & MCRANEY; AND REQUEST TO BE ADVISED OF CONFLICT-OF INTERESTS1 COMES NOW Creditor Vogel Newsome (“Newsome”) without waiving her rights, without submitting to the jurisdiction of this Court, without waiving the defenses and claims set forth in her: (a) “Creditor’s Opposition/Response to Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines and Motion to be Dismissed from Action” – Docket 10 – and (b) “Creditor Vogel Newsome’s Opposition/Response to 5/11/11 Discharge of Debtor; Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and Vacating of Discharge of Debtor” – Docket 20 - and files this her “Creditor’s (Vogel Newsome) Motion for Relief From Order/Judgment; Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Robert Rex McRaney Jr./McRaney & McRaney; and Request To Be Advised Of Conflict-Of Interests” (“CMFRFO/J”) pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), FRCP Rule 11; FRCP Rule 12(G) – consolidation of matters – and other statutes/laws governing said matters. In support thereof, Newsome states the following: I. LACK OF JURISDICTION: There is authority that dismissal of a bankruptcy case does not mandate dismissal of all pending adversary proceedings. However, if an entity joined as a party in an adversary proceeding raised the defense that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and that defense is sustained, the court 1 NOTE: Boldface, italics and underline, etc. represents “emphasis” added.
  4. 4. Page 2 of 28 must dismiss such entity from the adversary proceeding. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7019(1). Mississippi Case: Rice v. McMullen, 43 So.2d 195 (Miss. 1949) - A court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person of the parties, to give validity to its final judgments, orders and decrees, and legislature cannot under the Constitution dispense with notice, actual or constructive. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mississippi Public Service Commission, 135 F.Supp. 304 (S.D.Miss.Jackson.Div.,1955) - “Judicial power” is the legal right, ability and authority to hear and decide a justifiable issue or controversy, and such power is ordinarily vested in a court of justice. U.S. Supreme Court Case: U.S. v. O'Grady, 89 U.S. 641(1874) - “Jurisdiction” is the power to hear and determine a cause. In re N.L.R.B., 58 S.Ct. 1001 (1938) - “Jurisdiction” means, in one sense, the power to hear and determine the controversy presented, but a court has “jurisdiction,” in another sense, to determine whether such power is conferred upon it in the circumstances disclosed, and if it finds such power is not granted, it lacks “jurisdiction” of the subject matter and must refrain from an adjudication of rights in connection therewith. Other Court Cases: In re Jahelka, 2010 WL 5558990 (Bankr., 2010) - Subject matter jurisdiction is threshold question in every case. In re AE Liquidation, Inc., 435 B.R. 894 (2010) - A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction challenges the power of the federal court to hear a claim or case. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(1), 28 U.S.C.A. Issue of court's subject matter jurisdiction can be raised in any manner, including on motion of one of the parties or by the court sua sponte. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(1), 28 U.S.C.A. 1. Newsome DOES NOT waive her defense to the jurisdictional issue which arises in this matter. Therefore, Newsome does not submit to the jurisdiction of this Court. While the laws are clear that Newsome cannot waive jurisdictional rights, she believes it is necessary to provide information regarding decisions of court(s) on said issue(s): In re Kirkland, 600 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2010) - Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived, and can be raised by party, or by court sua sponte, at any time prior to final judgment. 2. This instant “CMFRFO/J” is submitted in good faith and has not been submitted for purposes of delay, harassment, hindering proceedings, embarrassment, obstructing the administration of justice, vexatious litigation, increasing the cost
  5. 5. Page 3 of 28 of litigation, etc. and is filed to protect and preserve the rights of Newsome secured/guaranteed under the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States. 3. For the purposes of expedition, saving of time and minimize costs associated with litigation, Newsome consolidate her motions/pleadings herein pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(G) which states: FRCP Rule 12(g) Joining Motions. Right to Join. A motion under this rule may be joined with any other motion allowed by this rule. 4. Townsend’s Title 11 – Chapter 7 Bankruptcy – proceeding is merely acts in FURTHERANCE of PATTERN-OF-ABUSE (i.e. for instance, under CRIMINAL LAWS may be known as “Engaging in a PATTERN of CORRUPT ACTIVITY”, etc.) to engage in criminal/civil wrongs and efforts to engage/solicit this Court to cover up such legal injustices. Now it appears from this Court’s June 27, 2014 Order relying upon a PROPOSED Order provided by Counsel for Debtor Townsend (Robert Rex McRaney, Jr.) that a Motion to Dismiss –which has NOT been served on Newsome – was filed with this Court. Service of process providing Newsome with a copy of the Debtor Townsend’s Motion to Dismiss has NOT been completed. In re Spencer, 137 B.R. 506 (1992) - All courts possess inherent power to protect their jurisdiction and process from abuse. In re Higginbotham, 111 B.R. 955 (1990). 5. Newsome’s December 3, 2010, filing of the lawsuit – United States District Court; Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division); Civil Action 3:10-cv- 704 - protected her rights and secured District Court with jurisdiction and any such actions as that brought by Townsend on or about January 18, 2011. Newsome’s December 3, 2010, lawsuit filed in this action secured District Court with jurisdiction to hear any such bankruptcy Townsend may attempt to assert in that Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing arises out of the relief Newsome seeks through this instant lawsuit. Therefore, it appears that Townsend has “HIT-A-BRICK- WALL” in her efforts to try and run and hide from the liability Newsome seeks of and against her for the legal wrongs addressed in Complaint. As a matter of law, Newsome is to be dismissed from Townsend’s Bankruptcy action or matter involving Newsome transferred the United States District Court for purposes of keeping legal matters combined. Matter of Wood, 825 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. Miss. 1987) - If proceeding involves right created by federal bankruptcy law, or is one which would only arise in bankruptcy, it is core proceeding, but if proceeding does not invoke substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law and is one that could exist outside of bankruptcy, it is noncore proceeding, though it may be related to bankruptcy because of its potential effect on debtor's estate. 28 U.S.C.A. § 157. In re OCA, Inc., 551 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2008) - Bankruptcy court's adjudicative authority is constrained if the adversary proceeding is non-core.
  6. 6. Page 4 of 28 6. As a matter of law, the United States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division) on December 3, 2010, FIRST retained jurisdiction over this matter. Jurisdiction is the power to decide; it must be conferred, not assumed. Matter of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. Co., 794 F.2d 1182 (7th Cir. 1986). All bankruptcy jurisdiction is given in the first instance to the United States district courts. Acolyte Elec. Corp. v. City of New York, 69 B.R. 155 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. 1986), ordered aff’d, 1987 1987 WL 47763 (E.D. N.Y. 1987); In re Double TRL, Inc., 65 B.R. 993 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. 1986). The district courts are granted jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases, that is cases under the Bankruptcy Code and over three categories of bankruptcy proceedings: (1) civil proceedings arising under Title 11; (2) civil proceedings arising in a case under Title 11; and (3) civil proceedings related to cases under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). As used in this statute, the phrase “arising under Title 11” is meant, not to distinguish between different matters, but to identify collectively a broad range of matters subject to the bankruptcy jurisdiction of federal courts. Matter of Wood, 825 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1987). On or about December 16, 2010, Newsome served Debtor (Ladye M. Townsend [“Townsend”]) with the required: (a) “Notice of Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of Summons;” and (b) “Waiver of the Service of Summons” which was accompanied by Notification Accompanying Waiver of Service of Summons. According to United States Postal Service information, Townsend received these documents on or about December 27, 2010. 7. PLEASE BE ADVISED: There are FOREIGN/INTERNATIONAL Interest in the Legal proceedings involving Vogel Newsome because it EXPOSES the CORRUPTION in the United States of America’s JUDICIAL System and SUPPORTS the RACIST/DISCRIMINATORY handling of lawsuits and SPECIAL FAVORS given to Terrorist/White Supremacist Regimes as the Law Firm of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. You see Foreign/International Nations have LAWYERS/ATTORNEYS as well and they can see for themselves THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS and EVIDENCE that Newsome is presenting in Legal matters involving her and HOW the JUDICIAL SYSTEM is TAINTED and DETERMINED to COVER-UP Criminal/Civil wrongs made known to it – i.e. for instance look at the interest the one of Judge Tom S. Lee’s (United States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson))
  7. 7. Page 5 of 28 NOTE: Information taken from Newsome’s SLIDESHARE Social Forum - www.SlideShare.net/VogelDenise 8. PLEASE BE ADVISED: Under the statutes/laws governing said matters that the Southern District Court of Mississippi (Jackson) action (Civil Action 3:10-cv- 704) is STILL very VIABLE and ACTIVE regardless of the APPEARANCE said Court may want the Public/World to think in displaying it as being CLOSED/DISMISSED – i.e. it is NOT. In fact, during the MAY 14, 2014 hearing held by this Court before Judge Edward Ellington, this REPEATEDLY seem to be an issue that was CLEARIFIED by Newsome that “DUE TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST” present, any/all RULINGS by the District Court in that Lawsuit is NULL/VOID and Newsome is in the process of having it addressed and seeing that the proper actions –i.e. PROSECUTIONS, IMPEACHMENTS, etc. are initiated. During said May 14, 2014 hearing, this Court attempted to convince/persuade Newsome that the Southern District Court of Mississippi (Jackson) action (Civil Action 3:10-cv-704) was a CLOSED/DISMISSED/RESOLVED matter. However, Newsome NOTIFIED the Court of the statutes/laws governing said matters which PRECLUDES the acts of Judge Louis Guirola in that lawsuit.
  8. 8. Page 6 of 28 FACTS and EVIDENCE of the CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS that precludes Judge Guirola from acting and NEITHER is Newsome required to ENGAGE in the CRIMINAL Acts of said Court/Judge in which the PROPER pleading(s) have been submitted and will be UPDATED to support the INVESTIGATION(S) requested. It is PLEASANT to state that said issues are PROPERLY/ADEQUATELY and TIMELY PRESERVED. Thus, allowing Newsome to CONTINUE in her QUESTS to EXPOSE what former United States of America’s President John Fitzgerald Kennedy announced: “There’s a PLOT in this country to ENSLAVE every man, woman and child. BEFORE I leave this HIGH and NOBLE office, I INTEND to EXPOSE the PLOT!” Then approximately seven (7) days later, President Kennedy is assassinated to SILENCE him! President Kennedy was nice in using the term “PLOT;” however, Newsome is going to call it what it is “CONSPIRACY(S)!” So let us move on!
  9. 9. Page 7 of 28 9. Newsome believes given the facts, evidence and legal conclusions not only in this Bankruptcy matter, but that in the United States District Court, that Townsend’s Title 7 Bankruptcy proceeding naming Newsome under “Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims” has been submitted: in bad faith, for purposes of harassment, for delay, for vexatious litigation, for purposes of increasing the costs of litigation, for embarrassment, for false and frivolous reasons in attempts to provide her with a defense to Newsome’s Civil lawsuit filed in the United States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division) [“USDC-MS proceeding”]on or about December 3, 2010; and other willful, malicious and wanton reasons known to Townsend for the filing of this Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding. Therefore, supporting the dismissal of Newsome from Townsend’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding: A district court may transfer a bankruptcy case or proceeding to a district court . . .in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties. 28 § 1412. In contrast with the general venue transfer statutes, this provision allows transfer to any district, not only to districts in which venue would have been proper had the case been brought in that district. In determining whether to transfer a bankruptcy case, the court should consider the following factors: (1) the proximity of creditors to the court; (2) the proximity of the debtor to the court; (3) the proximity of the witnesses necessary to the administration of the estate; (4) the location of the assets; (5) economic administration of the estate; (6) the necessity of ancillary administration if liquidation should result. See In re Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 596 F.2d 1239, 1247 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1045 (1980) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1475, substantially similar to present § 1412O. Newsome does not believe that based upon the willful, malicious and wanton acts of Townsend and the filing of this FRIVOLOUS Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding as a defense to Newsome’s “USDC-MS proceeding,” that a transfer of this case is warranted or even qualifies for transfer. Therefore, in the interest of justice and expedition of this case, Newsome timely, properly and adequately requested to be dismissed as a “Creditor” from Townsend’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy action in that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Newsome to proceed; furthermore, that this Court(if it insist on entertaining Townsend’s Bankruptcy action), in the interest of justice and convenience of parties transfer matter regarding Newsome to the United States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division) for consolidation of cases and convenience to parties. Townsend’s filing of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy action clearly supports that she would not be prejudiced by the transfer of this matter in that it will remain in SAME venue; however, JURISDICTION of the United States District Court – i.e. NOT Bankruptcy Court. Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1966) - Both jurisdiction and venue are designed to test fairness to defendant and degree of inconvenience caused him by requiring him to litigate in a particular court, but jurisdiction is relatively more concerned with fairness and venue more with inconvenience.
  10. 10. Page 8 of 28 10. It appears that Townsend and her counsel are attempting to get this Court to usurp jurisdiction over this matter, the laws clearly prohibits such practices. Brown v. Pyle, 310 F.2d 95 (5th Cir. Miss. 1962) - “Jurisdiction” is the power to hear and determine a cause-the power to adjudicate; it is not to be confused with venue. 11. While Newsome does not claim to have knowledge of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy laws, it is clear that Townsend did not bring this instant Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding as an “ENTITY,” “BUSINESS” for “ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR.” Therefore, Newsome believes the laws support her concerns as to the motives for the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing and this Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. 12. Newsome further believes that Townsend’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding filed with this Court in her INDIVIDUAL capacity was filed as a DEFENSE to Newsome’s “USDC-MS proceeding” and therefore, may be precluded by law given the facts, evidence and laws governing said matters. In re SemCrude, L.P., 428 B.R. 82 (2010) - As general rule, subject matter jurisdiction of court is based on state of facts that existed at time cause of action was filed. 13. Newsome further believes that a “FEDERAL” court judgment on her “USDC- MS proceeding” may preclude Townsend from bringing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding naming Newsome in efforts to avoid the liability owed for damages Newsome sustained and is addressed in the “USDC-MS proceeding.” Under the statutes/laws governing issues regarding CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, Newsome’s Lawsuit in Southern District Court of Mississippi (Jackson) action (Civil Action 3:10-cv-704) is still LEGALLY/LAWFULLY active despite the CRIMINAL acts of said court to make it appear that the case is closed (when it is NOT)! 14. Newsome is NOT a business entity, but a private citizen (individual) of the United States and is seeking relief of and against Townsend and others in the “USDC-MS proceeding.” II. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUNE 27, 2014 CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY ORDER Vogel Newsome (“Newsome) further moves this Court for “Relief From the June 27, 2014 Order” pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) entered in that Counsel for Debtor – Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney – obtained said ruling as a direct and proximate result of engaging in “FRAUD UPON THE COURT!” Moreover, that said Order is to be VACATED in that it was INDUCED and/or PROCURED through FRAUDULENT and CRIMINAL Acts. Not only that, this Court executed a PROPOSED Order to support a Motion to Dismiss that WAS NEVER served on Newsome. A PROPOSED Order it appears was produced by Opposing Counsel
  11. 11. Page 9 of 28 Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. via ELECTRONIC Filing; however, the Motion to Dismiss to which said proposed Order supports was NEVER served on Creditor Newsome. Moreover, to date (July 14, 2014) - at the time of this filing – Creditor Newsome has NOT been served with the Motion to Dismiss and thus, having NO KNOWLEDGE prior to the June 27, 2014 PROPOSED Order executed by this Court that a Motion to Dismiss by Debtor Townsend had been filed. Debtor Townsend’s Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney having KNOWLEDGE and UPDATED information regarding Newsome’s CURRENT/PRESENT mailing address; nevertheless, made a WILLFUL, CONSCIENCE and MALICIOUS decision to WITHHOLD service of Motion to Dismiss on Creditor Newsome having KNOWLEDGE it would be CONTESTED if it was served on Newsome.
  12. 12. Page 10 of 28 Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order (b) GROUNDS FOR RELIEF FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; . . . (6) any other reason that justifies relief. (c) TIMING AND EFFECT OF THE MOTION. (1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the . . . order or the date of the proceeding. (d) OTHER POWERS TO GRANT RELIEF. This rule does not limit a court's power to: (1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding; (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. . . . Fraud, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party are express grounds for relief by motion under amended subdivision (b). There is no sound reason for their exclusion. The incorporation of fraud and the like within the scope of the rule also removes confusion as to the proper procedure. It has been held that relief from a judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud could be secured by motion within a “reasonable time,” which might be after the time stated in the rule had run. Fiske v. Buder (C.C.A.8th, 1942) 125 F.(2d) 841; see also inferentially Bucy v. Nevada Construction Co. (C.C.A.9th, 1942) 125 F.(2d) 213.. . .. The amendment settles this problem by making fraud an express ground for relief by motion; and under the saving clause, fraud may be urged as a basis for relief by independent action insofar as established doctrine permits. See Moore and Rogers, Federal Relief from Civil Judgments (1946) 55 Yale L.J. 623, 653–659; 3 Moore's Federal Practice (1938) 3267 et seq. And the rule expressly does not limit the power of the court, when fraud has been perpetrated upon it, to give relief under the saving clause. As an illustration of this situation, see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co. (1944) 322 U.S. 238.
  13. 13. Page 11 of 28 However the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995) held that a lawyer’s failure to disclose . . . constituted fraud upon the court. In further support of said motion, 15. FACT: This Court has before it UNCONTESTED pleadings: (a) “Creditor’s Opposition/Response to Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines and Motion to be Dismissed from Action” – Docket 10 – and (b) “Creditor Vogel Newsome’s Opposition/Response to 5/11/11 Discharge of Debtor; Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and Vacating of Discharge of Debtor” – Docket 20 - of Vogel Newsome. 16. On or about May 14, 2014, this Court held a hearing:
  14. 14. Page 12 of 28 during said hearing, Judge Edward Ellington advised Newsome of additional information that the Court needed. Newsome advised the Court/Judge Ellington of her notation(s) of the Court’s requests and her proceeding to comply with said request(s). Furthermore, Newsome advised the Court/Judge Ellington of the JURISDICTION issue wherein it appears Judge Ellington wanted to remain and/or appear to be oblivious to such CRITICAL/CRUCIAL facts. Moreover, at said hearing Newsome REITERATED reliance upon said claims and defenses set forth in her pleadings before the Court. 17. The BODY Language, ACTION as well as CONDUCT of Judge Ellington were clear that he was DESPERATELY working to AID Counsel for Debtor Townsend – Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. – in the defense of the SHALLACKING being rendered by Newsome. Counsel McRaney had NO excuse for FAILURE to provide a REBUTTAL to Newsome’s pleadings – i.e. at Docket Nos. 10 and 20 of this instant Bankruptcy action. Judge Ellington’s CODED EYEYING of Opposing Counsel confirmed to Newsome that this Court/Ellington having KNOWLEDGE that Newsome’s arguments were SOUND and SUBSTANTIATED by statutes/laws governing said matters and went UNCONTESTED! Thus, warranting rulings in favor of the relief sought therein. 18. At the end of the May 14, 2014 Bankruptcy Hearing in this instant Bankruptcy action, this Court, Counsel for Townsend (McRaney) and Newsome UPDATED Address information for Newsome: Post Office Box 31265 Jackson, MS 39286 and Newsome advising that the Cincinnati, Ohio mailing address (P.O. Box 14731 – Cincinnati, OH 45250) is also good. McRaney also providing Newsome with his contact information (2 Business Cards):
  15. 15. Page 13 of 28 19. TO DATE (July 14, 2014), Newsome has NOT been served with the Motion to Dismiss that this Court’s June 27, 2014 addresses. The EVIDENCE supports that Newsome provided this Court and Counsel for Debtor (McRaney) with UPDATED mailing address and RECEIVED this Court’s June 27, 2014 PROPOSED Order created by Counsel for Debtor Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. 20. Creditor Vogel Newsome is PRO SE and is NOT an attorney and DOES NOT receive NOTICE(s) of filing(s) with this Court ELECTRONICALLY as Counsel for Debtor Townsend – McRaney. Furthermore, Newsome DOES NOT have available to her – because of PRO SE/NON-Attorney Status – the ability to submit filings ELECTRONICALLY through this Court’s Electronic Filing System. 21. With that being said, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on Counsel for Debtor Townsend to PROVE by EVIDENCE that he SERVED Newsome with the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and or other statutes/laws governing said matters: Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers (b) Service: How Made. (1) Serving an Attorney. If a party is represented by an attorney, service under this rule must be made on the attorney unless the court orders service on the party. (2) Service in General. A paper is served under this rule by: . . . (C) mailing it to the person's last known address—in which event service is complete upon mailing; . . (d) Filing. (1) Required Filings; Certificate of Service. Any paper after the complaint that is required to be served—together with a certificate of service—must be filed within a reasonable time after service. . . . 22. With TWO VALID addresses provided to Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. and Creditor Newsome NOT receiving Motion to Dismiss, it warrants further INVESTIGATION(S) as well as PROOF from Counsel McRaney that Service has been completed in the handling of the Motion to Dismiss he based his PROPOSED supporting Order upon.
  16. 16. Page 14 of 28 23. Such FRAUDULENT and CRIMINAL Acts by Debtor Townsend’s Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney is PREJUDICIAL and has caused Creditor Newsome rights SECURED under the Constitution –i.e. providing her with information so that she can CONTEST (if desired – Newsome would have contested Motion to Dismiss had she been served). The Constitution MANDATORILY requires that Creditor Newsome be provided with a copy of the Debtor Townsend’s Motion to Dismiss to which the PROPOSED Order of June 27, 2014 was executed upon. 24. Creditor Newsome is CONFIDENT that Counsel for Debtor Townsend (McRaney) will NOT be able to provide any PROOF/EVIDENCE of mailing(s) of the Motion to Dismiss ELECTRONICALLY filed, it appears from the proposed Order signed, because NO such mailing(s) was initiated as MANDATORILY required by the statute/laws governing said matters. 25. A reasonable mind may conclude that this Court submitted its ruling to Creditor Newsome at the mailing address (Post Office Box 31265 – Jackson, MS 39286) provided and Newsome’s RECEIPT is CONFIRMED through this filing; that most UNLIKE this Court Counsel McRaney did NOT serve Newsome with the Motion to Dismiss for purposes of ENGAGING in FRAUD UPON THE COURT and for purposes of obtaining an UNDUE and ILLEGAL advantage in this instant Bankruptcy action in which he is taking a HEAVY SHELLACKING! Moreover, the ROLE that it now appears to Creditor Newsome that Counsel McRaney is FULFILLING in the CHAIN CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome. It appears it may come down to Creditor Newsome doing further research to determine WHEN Counsel for Debtor Townsend (McRaney) FILED the Motion to Dismiss and WHEN (what date) the Lawsuit in the Anna Louise Inn Scandal was FILED – and HOW SERVICE OF PROCESS (if any) in said scandal was handled (if at all) – The Anna Louise Inn Lawsuit is an action brought AGAINST Newsome which is being POSTED in Social Forums for PUBLIC/WORLD interests:
  17. 17. Page 15 of 28 26. The Anna Louise Inn Lawsuit was filed AGAINST Newsome on or about MAY 28, 2014! So WHEN did Counsel for Debtor Townsend file the Motion to Dismiss and how CLOSE (proximity date range - if at all) is said filing with the Lawsuit in the Anna Louise Inn matter? Such information which is RELEVANT and PERTINENT in that it NOW appears that the CRIMINAL Acts of Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney’ WITHHOLDING of service fo the Motion to Dismiss may be a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result of his ROLE(S) in the CHAIN CONSPIRACIES targeting Creditor Newsome - - For instance: (a) On or about May 14, 2014, this Court held a Hearing regarding Newsome’s pleadings (Docket Nos. 10 and 20). (b) On or about May 28, 2014, a Lawsuit was brought AGAINST Newsome in the Anna Louise Inn matter. (c) SO WHEN did Counsel for Debtor Townsend (McRaney) file the Motion to Dismiss?
  18. 18. Page 16 of 28 27. On or about JUNE 27, 2014, the court in the Anna Louise Inn Matter set for hearing Newsome’s Motion to Dismiss. Then ON-THE-SAME-DATE (June 27, 2014), it appears that this Court’s Judge Ellington EXECUTED the proposed Order provided by Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. NOW let us look at WHEN this Court EXECUTED the proposed Order submitted by Counsel for Debtor Townsend (McRaney).
  19. 19. Page 17 of 28 28. This is IMPORTANT/RELEVANT information because the ANNA LOUISE SCANDAL is DIRECTLY LINKED to the Scandals and CRIMINAL Activities of United States of America President Barack Obama and his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz – i.e. who has an office located Jackson, Mississippi – and BAKER DONELSON is LEGAL COUNSEL to the Federal Judges and/or its Judges/Justices as Judge Edward Ellington as well as it appears may have played a KEY/MAJOR role in Judge Ellington’s APPOINTMENT to the Bench.
  20. 20. Page 18 of 28 29. In Newsome’s May 22, 2011 pleading entitled, “Creditor Vogel Newsome’s Opposition/Response to 5/11/11 Discharge of Debtor; Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and Vacating of Discharge of Debtor” – Docket 20 – she advised this Court that she had “BIGGER FISH TO FRY” which entails United States of America’s President Barack Obama and his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz! See at Docket 20, Pages 4 thru 9.
  21. 21. Page 19 of 28 30. Yes, with CRIMINAL LAWYERS as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz at the HELM OF THE SHIP in their ATTACKS leveled AGAINST Newsome, Newsome is getting JOY on EXPOSING what President John F. Kennedy sought to EXPOSE! It may have cost President Kennedy his life; however, he was a President UNLIKE President Barack Obama that appears WOULD NOT compromise with the likes of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz its TERRORIST/RACIST Regime. 31. Newsome believes there are sufficient, facts, evidence and legal conclusions in the “USDC-MS proceeding” to support that Townsend’s and her legal counsel’s (Robert Rex McRaney, Jr.) credibility is lacking. Moreover, that Townsend and McRaney have a PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE to: (a) provide false and misleading information; (b) obstruct justice and/or the administration of justice; and (c) engage in civil/criminal violations for willful, malicious and wanton intent. Thigpen v. Kennedy, 238 So.2d 744 (Miss.,1970) - It is duty of the chancellor to apply “unclean hands” doctrine of its own motion when it becomes evident that the facts of case are such they call for application of the doctrine. 32. Newsome believes that based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided herein, that Townsend comes before this Court with “UNCLEAN HANDS” and is AIDED and ABETTED by her attorney (McRaney). The unlawful/illegal acts of Townsend and McRaney are for purposes of causing Newsome further injury and harm. Moreover, efforts to preclude Newsome from recovering from injuries/harm caused by Townsend’s unlawful/illegal actions addressed in “USDC-MS proceeding.”
  22. 22. Page 20 of 28 Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2004) - The “unclean hands doctrine” is used to defeat an undeserving plaintiff's claim for equitable relief against a defendant that he has injured. 33. Townsend and her counsel (Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. [“McRaney”]) do not come before this Bankruptcy Court in good faith and clean hands. In fact, this instant Bankruptcy proceeding has been brought in bad faith and with dirty hands for purposes of causing needless delay, embarrassment to this Court, increasing the costs of litigation, harassment of Newsome, intimidation, coercion, obstructing the administration of justice, committing fraud on this Court and other reasons known to Townsend and her counsel (McRaney). In re Stoball's Will, 50 So.2d 635 (Miss.,1951) - He who comes into an equity court must come with clean hands, and one cannot use processes of that court when his conduct with respect to transaction in question has been characterized by wilful inequity, illegality, and fraud. 34. McRaney is an attorney whose area of SPECIALTY/practice entails, “BANKRUPTCY” law. Therefore, a reasonable may conclude that McRaney knew and/or should have known that in the filing of Townsend’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy action, was done with intent to commit fraud and deceive this Court. NOW we have Opposing Counsel McRaney’s handling of the Motion to Dismiss to SUBSTANTIATE such FRUDULENT acts upon this Court as well as the OBSTRUCTION of the Administration of Justice and other CRIMINAL Acts known and/or should be known to him as well as this Court. McRaney practicing before this Court with “DIRTY HANDS!” Other Court Case: Because Bankruptcy Court is a court of equity, a person seeking relief in Bankruptcy Court must come into court in good faith and with clean hands. In re Quality Trading Co., Inc., Bkrtcy.D.Hawaii 1984, 36 B.R. 265, reconsideration denied 39 B.R. 42. Mississippi Cases: Vasser v. Bibleway M.B. Church, 2010 WL 5093741 (Miss. App. 2010) - One seeking relief in equity must come with clean hands or face refusal by the court to aid in securing any right or granting any remedy. Community Bank of Mississippi v. Stuckey, 2010 WL 4983102 (Miss. 2010); Whalen v. Bistes, 45 So.3d 290 (Miss.App.,2010). Lane v. Lane, 850 So.2d 122 (Miss.App.,2002) - The court may apply the unclean hands doctrine sua sponte where it is shown applicable. 35. Even if Townsend may want to assert she relied upon the counsel of McRaney, such defense must also fail. Townsend has a history and pattern of engaging in criminal acts for purposes of obstructing justice. Furthermore, Townsend has an employment history in law as a Legal Secretary/Assistant. Therefore, a
  23. 23. Page 21 of 28 reasonable mind may conclude the necessary tools to determine whether the advice given her was lawful or whether she knowingly, deliberately and intentionally encouraged McRaney to file the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding with knowledge that she may have been committing fraud on the United States Bankruptcy Court – Southern District of Mississippi. Townsend’s PATTERN of CRIMINAL ACTS are also well documented in “USDC-MS proceeding.” Creditors could not defeat claim that they filed involuntary Chapter 7 petition in bad faith by asserting that they relied on advice of counsel; advice of counsel defense is only available to those who place good faith reliance on that advice after full disclosure of material facts, but creditors had intentionally deceived bankruptcy attorney by building a "Chinese wall" around him so that he would not know key facts regarding events surrounding the petition filing. In re Landmark Distributors, Inc., Bkrtcy.D.N.J. 1995, 189 B.R. 290. 36. Newsome further request through this instant filing that should the United States Bankruptcy Court find that Debtor’s counsel (Robert Rex McRaney, Jr.) has engaged in criminal/fraudulent practices that it initiate the applicable proceedings to have him disciplined – i.e. sanctioned and/or disbarred – if permissible under the laws governing said matters. Newsome believes that the appropriate disciplinary actions against McRaney is necessary to DETER and DISCOURAGE future abuse of the laws as an attorney/officer of the Court. In re Tbyrd Enterprises LLC, 354 Fed.Appx. 837 (5th Cir. 2009) - Bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to impose sanctions under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure against debtor's owner and debtor's counsel for filing a bad faith petition, since the imposition of sanctions on litigants in a bankruptcy case was a matter arising in such a case within meaning of the statute granting bankruptcy judges authority to hear and determine matters arising in a bankruptcy case. 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(b)(1); Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 9011, 11 U.S.C.A. In re Pratt, 524 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2008) - Because Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure is substantially identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the Court of Appeals may refer to Rule 11 jurisprudence when considering sanctions under Rule 9011. Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 9011, 11 U.S.C.A.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 11, 28 U.S.C.A. In re First City Bancorporation of Texas Inc., 282 F.3d 864 (5th Cir. 2002) - Sanctions imposed by the bankruptcy court must be chosen to employ the least possible power to the end proposed; in other words, the court must use the least restrictive sanction necessary to deter the inappropriate behavior.
  24. 24. Page 22 of 28 WHEREFORE, Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. did KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY commit FRAUD UPON THE COURT in the handling of the Motion to Dismiss and ENGAGED in a PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL Acts through the use of this Court’s Electronic Filing System which WARRANTS the proper INVESTIGATIONS and PROSECUTION(S) for criminal/civil wrongs McRaney engaged in. III. MOTION FOR SANCTION(S): Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(G) and Rule 11, Creditor Vogel Newsome (“Newsome”) moves this Court, for the above foregoing reasons and those known to this Court for the ISSUANCE of Sanctions of and AGAINST Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney in accordance with the Statutes/Laws governing said matters. In support thereof, Newsome states the following: Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions (a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention. (b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;. . . Sanctions. (1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm
  25. 25. Page 23 of 28 must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee. (2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion. (3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b). (4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation. (5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction: (A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or (B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned. (6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction. A. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE – RULE 11 SANCTIONS: Skidmore Energy, Inc. v. KPMG, 455 F.3d 564, 569-570 (2006) – Under the “snapshot” rule, sanctions based on a frivolous pleading were proper because the lack of legal and evidentiary support for the pleading at the time it was filed. The . . .court found the claims lacked both legal and factual support and imposed more than $500,000 in sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel, based on defendants’ reasonable expenses incurred in litigating against the claims. . . . This test focuses on the instant when the signature is placed on the document, and the state of mind of the signer at the time. The test ensures the Rule 11 liability is assessed only for violation existing at the moment of filing. The . . . court had clearly concluded that the pleadings were frivolous when filed. The fact that they continued to lack
  26. 26. Page 24 of 28 evidentiary support throughout the proceedings only underscored the violation. (n. 4) Both client and attorney have duty to conduct reasonable inquiry into facts or law before filing lawsuit; (n. 5) In lawsuit addressing ongoing dispute . . .court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs; rather than sanctioning them for legally frivolous nature of pleadings, it sanctioned them for . . .factually groundless allegations in their complaint; and (n. 7) Fifth Circuit's “snapshot” rule/test ensures that Rule 11 liability is assessed only for a violation existing at moment of filing. 37. This Court, upon the use of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ “SNAPSHOT Rule” Debtor Ladye M. Townsend’s and her Legal Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss will find the evidence LACKING to support dismissal. Moreover, that the CRIMINAL ACTS and PATTERN-OF- CRMINAL acts of Debtor and her Counsel supports the Bankruptcy action brought and the listing of Vogel Newsome (an INDIVIDUAL and NOT a Business Entity) is frivolous and a sham submitted with WILLFUL, MALICIOUS and WANTON acts to commit fraud upon this Court. Furthermore, that said pleadings brought by Debtor and her Counsel clearly lacked legal standing and evidentiary support at the time they were filed. Therefore, supporting and sustaining the sanction relief Newsome seeks through this instant filing. 38. Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude that in using the “SNAPSHOT Rule” as well as COUNSEL Robert Rex McRaney Jr.’s DELIBERABTE, WILLFUL and MALICIOUS acts in failing to provide Newsome with a copy of the Motion to Dismiss to which the JUNE 27, 2014 Order is issued were for purposes of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, harassment, embarrassment, obstructing justice, delaying proceedings, increasing the costs of litigation, violating the Rules of the Court and Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and other reasons known to him. 39. Newsome further believes that the record evidence will support that Debtor Townsend and her Counsel (McRaney) have established a “PATTERN-OF- ABUSE” and “PATTERN-OF-ENGAGING-IN-CRIMINAL ACTS” to further support Rule 11 Sanctions as well as this Court’s reporting of said CRIMINAL acts to the appropriate agency/entity for prosecution, sanction and disbarment (if applicable). 40. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are CLEAR of the MANDATORY requirements for such FRAUDULENT and CRIMINAL acts of Counsel for Debtor Townsend (Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney). 41. Newsome believes that the record evidence will support that Rule 11 liability is deemed appropriate at this time to deter and discourage Counsel for Debtor Townsend – Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney) from coming before this Court with fraudulent intent, criminal intent and other willful, malicious and wanton unethical behavior known to them.
  27. 27. Page 25 of 28 42. Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney KNEW that he/it was ENGAGING in FRAUDULENT practices UPON THIS COURT in the submittal of the Motion to Dismiss granted through the June 27, 2014 Order ATTACHED to his/its PROPOSED Order dismissing action. Moreover, that FAILURE to provide Creditor Newsome with Motion to Dismiss with KNOWLEDGE that she is PRO SE and is NOT an attorney further SOLIDIFIES the FRAUDULENT practices INITATED upon this Court and WILLFUL, MALICIOUS and WANTON acts to ENGAGE this Court in his/its CRIMINAL ACTS! Mercury Air Group, Inc. v. Mansour, 237 F.3d 542 (C.A.5. 2001) - Under Rule 11, an attorney must have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law of a case at the time which he or she affixes his or her signature on any papers to the court. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 11, 28 U.S.C.A. Walker v. City of Bogalusa, 168 F.3d 237 (C.A.5.1999) - A signatory violates Rule 11 if he fails to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts underlying his motion, or if he makes a motion to delay, harass or increase the costs of litigation. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 11, 28 U.S.C.A. Prior to Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. AFFIXING his signature to the PROPOSED Order supporting the Motion to Dismiss, he KNEW that he did NOT and NEITHER was he intending to provide Creditor Newsome with a copy of the Motion to Dismiss. In so ENGAGING in such CRIMINAL acts, a REASONABLE mind may conclude that the CRIMINAL and FRAUDULENT acts by Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney was done with FORETHOUGHT, MALICE and FRAUDULENT intent, etc. 43. The nature and/or area of BANKRUPTCY is within the “LEGAL FIELD and EXPERTISE” – of Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney. Therefore, supporting KNOWLEDGE that his/its handling of the Motion to Dismiss this Court executed a PROPOSED Order from Opposing Counsel on was provided with WILLFUL and MALICIOUS intent to commit FRAUD UPON THE COURT and to get this Court to ERR on relying upon an OFFICER OF THE COURT who took an OATH; nevertheless, TOOK A FAR DEPARTURE from said Oath for purposes of obtaining an UNDUE/UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL advantage in this instant Bankruptcy action. 44. During the May 14, 2014 hearing before Judge Ellington, this Court wanted Creditor Newsome to believe that her Civil Lawsuit in United States District Court; Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division); Civil Action 3:10-cv- 704 was NO LONGER viable; however, Newsome CORRECTED and INFORMED this Court with Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney present that such ASSERTION was in ERROR and that the United States District Court action is ALIVE and WELL despite HOW that Court wants it to appear to the PUBLIC/WORLD! Thus, allowing
  28. 28. Page 26 of 28 Creditor Newsome to continue to PURSUE other CRIMINAL/CIVIL prosecution in other matters. Marlin v. Moody Nat. Bank, N.A., 533 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2008) - “Snapshot rule” ensures that Rule 11 liability is assessed only for violation existing at moment of filing. Nevertheless, in this instant matter, Creditor Newsome wants to REITERATE that the United States District Court; Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division); Civil Action 3:10-cv-704, due to the CONFLICT-OF- INTERESTS of Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. is ALIVE and WELL and BEAUTIFULLY Stayed while she pursues OTHER Legal Resources available to her – i.e. just CONTINUE to WATCH CAPITOL HILL in Washington, D.C. 45. After the May 14, 2014 Bankruptcy Hearing, Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. advised Creditor Newsome of Debtor Townsend’s financial situation which led her to have to file for Bankruptcy. McRaney it appears advising Newsome of such for purposes of obtaining sympathy from her; however, Newsome advised McRaney, that he would not be getting any sympathy from her and that Debtor Townsend was fully aware of her actions and the Civil Lawsuit was a direct and proximate result of her ENGAGEMENT in Criminal/Civil wrongs – i.e. LYING during Federal Investigation(s) in which Newsome has documentation supporting same. Moreover, it was obvious that Creditor Newsome had become VERY UPSET that Opposing Counsel McRaney was requesting she let Debtor Townsend off the hook because of her financial situation – i.e. NOT A CHANCE! Information PERTINENT and RELEVANT for the purposes of SHOWING the STATE of MIND – i.e. Criminal Intent – of Opposing Counsel McRaney and his KNOWLEDGE that Creditor Newsome would provide a DEFENSE for any pleading filed. Therefore, realizing that he FAILED to provide a REBUTTAL pleading to Creditor’s: (a) “Creditor’s Opposition/Response to Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines and Motion to be Dismissed from Action” – Docket 10 – and (b) “Creditor Vogel Newsome’s Opposition/Response to 5/11/11 Discharge of Debtor; Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and Vacating of Discharge of Debtor” – Docket 20. It appears from the June 27, 2014 Order of this Court, that Opposing Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney did KNOWINGLY and WITH MALICIOUS intent submit a Motion to Dismiss and a PROPOSED Order that it UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY withheld from Creditor Newsome for purposes of obtaining an UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL advantage in this Bankruptcy action with KNOWLEDGE that Creditor Newsome would provide a REBUTTAL to the Motion to Dismiss. In so doing, Creditor Newsome has been
  29. 29. INJURED/HARMED and DEPRIVED for Consritutional and Civil Rights to CONTEST the Motion to Dismiss because Opposing Coimsel McRaney WITHHELD service and may have PERJURED himself and/or LIED, FALSIFIED and/or MISREPRESENTED to this Court that Creditor Newsome had been served - i.e. which can be CONFIRMED through an INVESTIGATION and this Court's reviewing of the Motion to Dismiss filed; however, NOT served on Creditor Newsome. WHEREFORE, Creditor Vogel Newsome moves this Court for SANCTIONS of and against Counsel Robert Rex McRaney, Jr./McRaney & McRaney in the amount of S50,000.(X) as well as this Court's filing of the appropriate Criminal Acts/lnvesrigarions for prosecution (i.e. SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT, etc.) for the Criminal/Civil wTongs reported herein. P L E A S E T A K E N O T I C E : That Creditor Vogel Newsome through the above Morions, hereby demand to be advised of ANY/ALL CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS in this Court's handhng of the instant Bankruptcy matter WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Newsome prays that his Court GRANT the relief set forth in this instant "Creditor's Motion for Relief From Order/Judgment: Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Robert Rex McRaney Jr, McRaney & McRaney: and Request To Be Advised Of ConfJtci-Of Interests" and the supporting Motions individually raised m this instant Bankruptcy pleading. Wliile Newsome believes diat this mstant filing provides the facts and evidence to support the rehef sought herein and saves of additional costs, she reserves the right to submit to this Court her Memorandum Brief in support of "CORNCTCBC&jVfTD'" i f said Court deems die motion alone is insufficient and an additional memorandum brief may be beneficial. Respectfully submitted this 14* day of July, 2014. i S - . : > " I '•- By: Vogel Newsome Post Office Box 14731 Cincinnati, Ohio 45250 Phone: (601) 885-9536 or (5 13) 680-2922 Page 27 of 28
  30. 30. C E R T I F I C A T E O F SERNTCE The undersigned hereby cerdfies that a true and correct copy of the forgoing pleading was MAILED via U.S. Mail first-class to: Robert Rex McRaney, Jr. Post Office Box 1397 Clinton, Mississippi 39060 COUNSEL FOR. DEBTOR (LADYE M. imTvlSEND) Dated this 14* day of July, 2014. Vogel Newsome Page 28 of 28

×