08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE

on

  • 6,475 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
6,475
Views on SlideShare
6,475
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE 08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE Document Transcript

  • AUGUST 25, 2012 TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:RESPONSE TO JUNE 28, 2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITEDSTATES’ DOCUMENTS RECEIVED – REQUEST FOR AN ANSWERREGARDING WHAT IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGELDENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT SOUGHTTO BE FILED UNDER THE “ALL WRITS” STATUTE/LAW ANDGOVERNING UNITED STATES LAWS – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORTCOMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS –REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTEnglish Version: https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/082512-us-supreme-court-responsePlease feel free to visit www.vogeldenisenewsome.net TRANSLATION Tool is in the TOP Right-Hand CornerAUGUST 26, 2012 FAX CONFIRMATION TO UNITED STATES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMANOTIFYING OF PLEADING: Page 1 of 1
  • In the United States of America MONOPOLIES arePROHIBITED/FORBIDDEN! So HOW, was ONE Country like theUnited States of America ALLOWED to MONOPOLIZE and CAUSE the WORSTDECEIVE so MANY Leaders andGLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE in HISTORY andREMAIN UNPUNISHED?The United States of America CONTROLS/RUN the WORLD Bank andUNITED NATIONS which are HOUSED on its soil. It appearsONE LAW FIRM (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &Berkowitz) has been allowed to HIJACK, RUN and CONTROL theUnited States of America’s andGovernment USE“HOODS/FRONTS/PEOPLE/ORGANIZATIONS” to KEEP theirIDENTITY and TERRORIST ACTS HIDDEN from the PUBLIC/WORLD!It is TIME to WAKE UP and get such TERRORISTS OUTOF POWER! Page 2 of 2
  • No. _____________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME PETITIONER V. STOR-ALL ALFRED, LLC; JUDGE JOHN ANDREW WEST/ HAMILTON COUNTY (OHIO) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 250 RESPONDENT(S) RESPONSE TO JUNE 28, 2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RECEIVED – REQUEST FOR AN ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT SOUGHT TO BE FILED UNDER THE “ALL WRITS” STATUTE/LAW AND GOVERNING UNITED STATES LAWS – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS – REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST1 COMES NOW Petitioner, Vogel Denise Newsome – a/k/a Denise V. Newsome (“Newsome”and/or “Petitioner Newsome”) – WITHOUT WAIVING HER RIGHTS and ARGUMENTS/ISSUESand DEFENSES raised and/or set forth in the October 9, 2010 “Emergency Motion to Stay;Emergency Motion for Enlargement of Time and Other Relief The United States Supreme CourtDeems Appropriate To Correct The Legal Wrongs/Injustices Reported Herein” (“EM/ORS”),subsequent pleadings/submittals (i.e. which includes March 12, 2012 Petition for ExtraordinaryWrit [“PFEW”] and Response To March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2011, Supreme Court Of The UnitedStates’ Letters – Identifying Extraordinary Writ(s) To Be Filed and Writ(s) Under All Writs Act ToBe Filed (“RT031711&042711SCL”) as well as Newsome’s July 18, 2011 Letter entitled, Response 1 BOLDFACE, ITALICS, UNDERLINE, CAPS/Small Caps, etc. added for emphasis. Page 1 of 118
  • to May 18, 2011 Mailing RETURNED Containing Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Copy Of May 3,2011 Pleading which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein atEXHIBIT “A” of this instant filing; wherein Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY andADEQUATELY demanded that the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States STEPDOWN IMMEDIATELY! This instant filing entitled, RESPONSE TO JUNE 28, 2012SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RECEIVED – REQUESTFOR AN ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISENEWSOME’S PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT SOUGHT TO BE FILEDUNDER THE “ALL WRITS” STATUTE/LAW AND GOVERNING UNITED STATESLAWS –AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILINGREQUIREMENTS – REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OFINTEREST (“RFANSWER”) is in response to this Court’s June 28, 2012 return of document(s) –i.e. with NO LETTER explaining return of documents and errors (if any)with the March 12, 2011 Petition for Extraordinary Writ. See EXHIBIT “B” – Photocopy PostageInformation of June 28, 2012 Mailing attached hereto and incorporated by reference. PLEASE BE ADVISED that Newsome does NOT have time for the SupremeCourt of the United States’ FOOLISHNESS and CONTINUED efforts in “OBSTRUCTION ofJUSTICE” and “ABUSE of the JUDICIAL Process” as this Court CONTINUES to engage withother CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS in delaying the filing of Newsome’s TIMELY filed“Petition For Extraordinary Writ” for purposes of getting United States ofAmerica President Barack Hussein Obama II through the Page 2 of 118
  • November 2012 Presidential Elections. Therefore, Newsome is movingforward to utilize through any and/or all LEGAL means available to get the JUSTICE she and thePUBLIC-AT-LARGE/INTERNATIONALLY Communities have been seeking for DECADESAGAINST the United States of America’s CORRUPT Government REGIME! Nevertheless, in theinterest of justice and PRESERVATION of protected rights, Newsome submits this instant pleading. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Supreme Court of the United States wasTIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY requested to advise Newsome of all “CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST” that may be present in this Court’s handling of her lawsuit. However, to date, thisCourt has REFUSED to advise Newsome of the CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST that exist with thisCourt – i.e. TIES/RELATIONSHIP to Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz [“BakerDonelson”] and its Clients (i.e. such as United States of America President Barack Obama, UnitedStates of America CONGRESS, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company(i.e. which has legal counsel in this instant lawsuit), J.P.Morgan Chase Bank, and other CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS, etc. known to it). Instead,this Court is attempting to COVER-UP/HIDE/SHIELD from Newsome and the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE by deliberately SNEAKING out Baker Donelson employees such as James C. Duff –DIRECTOR of Administrative Office of the United States Court APPOINTED by Justice JohnRoberts and SNEAKING in one of Baker Donelson’s TAINTED/CORRUPT Judges (Thomas F.Hogan) – See EXHIBIT “EE” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in fullherein. Moreover, failing to advise Newsome and/or the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE of what appears tobe Baker Donelson’s OWNERSHIP and/or CONTROL of the Supreme Court of the United States ofAmerica and other Courts: Page 3 of 118
  • PLEASE NOTE: If there is a problem with a Slideshare.net Link, documents may be accessed at: www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield-patents http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875f626f789ea2 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-james-cjudicialpositionsheldresignation http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-jameswikipediaresignhighlighted-copy http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-james-cduff- announceresignationfromuscourts http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875e6174a66e9e http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875e6175b3b26aand its MAJOR ROLE in the appointment of JUSTICES to this Court by seeing to it that itsemployees are appointed to JUDICIAL NOMINATION PANELS: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/nomination-judicial-panelMoreover, that this Court failed to advise Newsome and/or the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE of the MAJORRoles James C. Duff and other employees of Baker Donelson REPEATEDLY plays in theCONSPIRACIES with the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States to OBSTRUCT theAdministration of Justice as well as OBSTRUCT the filing of the Petition For Extraordinary Writfor purposes of protecting this Court as well as the United States of AmericaEXECUTIVE Branch’s, United States of America LEGISLATIVE Branch’s,United States of America JUDICIAL Branch’s and other CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS’ personal, financial and business interests from the LIABILITYin the outcome of the above reference Lawsuit . This Court having FULL KNOWLEDGEof James C. Duff’s employment and OBLIGATIONS to his employer Baker Donelson BearmanCaldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”) as well as this Court’s JUSTICES specialRELATIONSHIPS/CONNECTIONS to Baker Donelson as well. Nevertheless, neither Page 4 of 118
  • this Court nor Parties involved made this information available to Newsome. Moreover,KNOWLEDGE of Baker Donelson’s providing Legal Counsel/Advice to the United States ofAmerica President Barack Obama see: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lancesr- advisortopresidenthhscounselorgovofva http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lance-bresearchinfo http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875e6273b6a5ae In further support of this instant filing, Newsome states the following: 1. This instant “RFANSWER” is submitted in good faith and is not submitted for purposes of delay, harassment, hindering proceedings, embarrassment, obstructing the administration of justice, vexatious litigation, increasing the cost of litigation, etc. and is filed to protect and preserve the rights of Newsome secured/guaranteed under the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States. Moreover, to address matters of PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL importance and interests. 2. That the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America was TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY demanded to “STEP DOWN” by Friday, July 22, 2011; however, to date still remain on the bench with KNOWLEDGE of the CRIMINAL acts they have committed not ONLY against Newsome but the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE through their CORRUPTION and DECEPTIVE practices to HIDE/CONCEAL the criminal/civil wrongs of their Legal Counsel/Advisor and CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”) – i.e. and Baker Donelson Clients such as United States President Barack Obama, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE (who have FRONTING law firms as Markesbery & Richardson Co. and Schwartz Manes Ruby & Slovin representing in this instant lawsuit), etc.) Document may be obtained at: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/072311-email- toobama-merged-with-attachment Page 5 of 118
  • 3. Newsome hereby DEMANDS that this Court advise her of any/all CONFLICTS- Of-Interest that exist. In further support of this DEMAND please see the following Table; however, additional CONFLICTS are MANDATORILY required to be made KNOWN to Newsome as a matter of statutes/laws governing said matters. It is a matter of PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL interests in that this Court is the HIGHEST Court of the ONCE MOST powerful Country (United The HIGHEST Court in States of America) in the World. whom one has to be either CATHOLIC or JEWISH to be appointed – i.e. DISCIMINATORY and UNCONSTITUTIONAL practices. The United States of America in which its CONGRESS consist of approximately 100% ALL WHITE Senate and approximately 90% ALL WHITE House of Representatives as recent as the YEAR 2012! The HIGHEST Court in the ONCE MOST powerful Country (United States of America) which is AWARE of the CONFLICTS-Of-Interest present and FAILURE to RECUSE and or STEP DOWN from serving. For instance, this Court is FULLY AWARE and ALLOWING Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz to CONTROL and MANIPULATE “Supreme Court DECISIONS” through CRIMINAL acts and practices. Moreover, the Justices and the Staff of this Court are WILLING PARTICIPANTS in Baker Donelson’s CONSPIRACIES and CRIMINAL activities, and, therefore, present CONFLICTS-Of-Interest. See EXHIBIT “DD” – Conduct or Bias of Law Clerk or Other Judicial Support Personnel As Warranting Recusal of FEDERAL Judge or Magistrate (i.e. which INCLUDE Justice(s) of the Supreme Court of the United States, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. The Justices of this Court having KNOWLEDGE that it is Baker Donelson’s ACCESS and CONTROL of the EXECUTIVE Branch/White House/United States of America Presidents and LEGISLATIVE Branch/Congress/United States Senators as their Legal Counsel/Advisor that led to their NOMINATION and APPOINTMENT of Justices Baker Donelson wanted! During Newsome’s research on said matter(s), she came across an article in the Minnesota Law Review entitled, “DISQUALIFICATION of Supreme Court Justices: The Certiorari Conundrum,” in which for instance, provide an example: Page 6 of 118
  • . . .the recent nomination of Stephen Breyer to the United States Supreme Court raised the question of his participation as a “name” in a Lloyd’s of London insurance syndicate. During the confirmation hearings, Justice Breyer pledged that he would not participate in any cases that implicated Lloyd’s financial interests. As a member of the Court, he has declined to sit on cases involving Lloyd’s either directly or indirectly. Other nominees in less controversial circumstances have made similar disqualification commitments. Since 1992, there have been OVER 350 cases, petitions, motions or applications in which one or more Supreme Court Justices “took NO part. . .”at Page 659 See EXHIBIT “CC” – attached hereto and incorporated by reference asif set forth in full herein. Nevertheless, when Newsome has come before this Court,its Justices CLEARLY having KNOWLEDGE of the CONFLICTS-Of-Interest;however, FAILED to recuse themselves and proceeded on to ENGAGE inCRIMINAL wrongdoing and ROLE in Conspiracies to DEPRIVE Newsome EQUALprotection of the laws, immunities and privileges and DUE PROCESS of lawssecured/guaranteed under the United States Constitution. As in the instant lawsuit,the Justices of this Court are AWARE and/or have KNOWLEDGE of BakerDonelson’s FINANCIAL interests in this lawsuit and that of its Clients – i.e.LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, United States of AmericaPRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, the United States of America’sCONGRESSIONAL Members and those with whom they CONSPIRE. While Baker Donelson’s name may not appear as Legal Counsel in thisLawsuit, PROVISIONS have been made to add them and their Client(s) as a partywhen applicable and upon receipt of DISCOVERY evidence which will provideadditional evidence as to the ROLE it has played in the CONSPIRACIES leveledagainst Newsome – i.e. being added in replacement of the unnamed “DOES 1through 250” – and their INTERESTS in this instant lawsuit. Furthermore,Newsome’s RESEARCH has yielded information wherein Baker Donelson engagesin “TAG-TEAM Litigation” – i.e. lawsuits in which Baker Donelson may SHAREClients also represented by other Law Firms and SHARE in the expenses andrepresentation of clients. For instance, see HOOD vs. HOFFMAN-LAROCHE,LTD, District of Columbia District Court, Case No. 1:06-cv-01484 – EXHIBIT“EE” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein –where Baker Donelson TAG-TEAMS with Law Firms as Butler Snow O’MaraStevens & Cannada PLLC (“Butler Snow”) and Phelps Dunbar LLP (“PhelpsDunbar”). Of course, like Baker Donelson, their associating law firms enjoyingsharing their CLIENT LISTINGS with the PUBLIC. See for instance EXHIBIT“FF” – Phelp Dunbars Listing and that of Page Kruger & Holland attached heretoand incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. SUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE is apparent through lawsuits in which Newsome engages. For instance: In Newsome vs. Mitchell McNutt & Sams, Butler Snow attempted to enter that lawsuit WITHOUT making an appearance. Newsome Page 7 of 118
  • TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY objected to theseCRIMINAL and CIVIL violations! Newsome believes that BakerDonelson is involved and merely using Butler Snow as a FRONTINGFirm to HIDE/SHIELD its ROLE and INTERESTS in lawsuit. Thiscase is just sitting DORMANT as Baker Donelson and itsCONSPIRATORS and BRIBED/TAINTED and CORRUPTJudge(s) to OBSTRUCT the administration of justice andCONTINUE to engage in CRIMINAL and CIVIL violations leveledagainst Newsome. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/051912-docket-sheet-mms A lawsuit in which one of Phelp Dunbar’sEmployees (F. Keith Ball) has been assigned as the MagistrateJudge: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071812-fax-to-phelps-dunbar-w-thomas-siler-jr-jason-t-marsh This is a lawsuitin which Baker Donelson had Magistrate Ball ABUSE his Authorityand WITHOUT Jurisdiction, etc. enter a NULL/VOID OrderSTAYING the lawsuit. Now it appears a matter which may also haveto be brought before this Court as an ORIGINAL action pursuant toRules 17 and 20 of the Supreme Court of the United States and otherstatutes/laws governing said matters. In Newsome vs. Page Kruger & Holland, etal., Phelps Dunbar has appeared as counsel andis acting as the FRONTING Firm for BakerDonelson and their INTERESTS. Judge Tom S. Lee isassigned this matter. Judge Lee appears on Baker Donelson’sLISTING of Judges: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-ties-to-judgesjustices-as-of120911-11566964 As well as BakerDonelson appearing on Judge Lee’s List of Law Firms REQUIRINGhis recusal: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/lee-judge-recusal-orders-11574531 Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY madeher OBJECTIONS KNOWN to the Court. However, it appears thatas recent as August 20, 2012, Judge Tom S. Lee too has ABUSED hisauthority, USURPED jurisdiction over this lawsuit in which he lacksand, as a matter of law, is required to RECUSE himself.Nevertheless, Judge Tom S. Lee is ADAMENT about staying in thelawsuit for CRIMINAL intent and the FULFILLMENT of his ROLEin the CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome. A matter which itappears may have to be brought before this Court as an ORIGINALaction pursuant to Rules 17 and 20 of the Supreme Court of theUnited States and other statutes/laws governing said matters. This instant lawsuit is before this Court because of theCRIMINAL acts of Baker Donelson and one of its TOP/KEY Clients(LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY). TheyCONTROL and RUN the Ohio Supreme Court as well. Moreover,engage in CRIMINAL activities for purposes of obtaining decisions Page 8 of 118
  • in their favor and that of their clients (i.e. in this instant lawsuit Stor- All Alfred). YES, the proper CRIMINAL Complaint has been filed with the United States Department of Justice/Federal Bureau of Investigations; however, BAKER DONELSON is Legal Counsel/Advisor for that Government Agency as well: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/122809-fbi-complaint- ohio-supreme-courtNOW the SUPREME COURT of the United States ofAmerica - - QUIT HIDING! PULL OFF THEHOODS and SHOW YOUR TRUE FACES. A coupleof minorities on the bench is only ANOTHER one ofBaker Donelson’s FRONTS to HIDE/SHIELD theirTRUE RACIST IDEOLOGY: Page 9 of 118
  • BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT APPOINTED BY BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S) U.S. PRESIDENT(S) BERKOWITZSamuel Alito: George W. Bush Legal Counsel/Advisor to Presidenthttp://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise George W. Bush/alito-samuel-wikipedia-info Assistant to President Bush CHIEF of Staff /Legal Counsel for Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney CHIEF of Staff/SENIOR Counsel to Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) DIRECTOR of Administrative Office of the United States Courts Legal Counsel to Members of Congress Legal Counsel to Justice Alito Page 10 of 118
  • BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT APPOINTED BY BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S) U.S. PRESIDENT(S) BERKOWITZStephen Breyer: William “Bill” Clinton Legal Counsel/Advisor to Presidenthttp://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Clinton/breyer-stephen-wikipedia-info Legal Counsel to Members of Congress Legal Counsel to Justice BreyerRuth Bader Ginsburg: William “Bill” Clinton Legal Counsel/Advisor to Presidenthttp://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Clinton/ginsburg-ruth-bader-wikipedia-info Legal Counsel to Members of Congress Legal Counsel to Justice Ginsburg Page 11 of 118
  • BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT APPOINTED BY BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S) U.S. PRESIDENT(S) BERKOWITZEleana Kagan: Barack Obama Legal Counsel/Advisor to Presidenthttp://www.slideshare.net/VogelD Obamaenise/kagan-elena-wikipedia-info CHIEF of Staff for President Barack Obama DIRECTOR of Administrative Office of the United States Courts Legal Counsel to Members of Congress Legal Counsel to Justice KaganAnthony Kennedy: Ronald Reagan Legal Counsel/Advisor to Presidenthttp://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Reagan/kennedy-anthony-wikipedia-info CHIEF of Staff for President Reagan Deputy Assistant Legal Counsel to Members of Congress Legal Counsel to Justice Kennedy Page 12 of 118
  • BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT APPOINTED BY BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S) U.S. PRESIDENT(S) BERKOWITZChief Justice John Roberts: George W. Bush Legal Counsel/Advisor to Presidenthttp://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise George W. Bush/justice-john-g-roberts-wikipedia-info Assistant to President Bush CHIEF of Staff for Vice President Richard (“Dick”) Cheney CHIEF of Staff/SENIOR Counsel to Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) DIRECTOR of Administrative Office of the United States Courts Legal Counsel to Members of Congress Legal Counsel to Justice RobertsAntonin Scalia: Ronald Reagan Legal Counsel/Advisor to Presidenthttp://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Reagan/scalia-antonin-wikipedia-info CHIEF of Staff for President Reagan Legal Counsel to Members of Congress Legal Counsel to Justice Scalia Page 13 of 118
  • BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT APPOINTED BY BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S) U.S. PRESIDENT(S) BERKOWITZSonia Sotomayor: Barack Obama Legal Counsel/Advisor to Presidenthttp://www.slideshare.net/VogelD Obamaenise/sotomayor-sonia-wikipedia-info-11693471 CHIEF of Staff for President Barack Obama DIRECTOR of Administrative Office of the United States Courts Legal Counsel to Members of Congress Legal Counsel to Justice SotomayorClarence Thomas: George H.W. Bush Legal Counsel to George H.W.http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Bush/thomas-clarence-wikipedia-info SECRETARY of State Special Assistant to Secretary of Defense General Counsel to Department of Defense Legal Counsel to Members of Congress Legal Counsel to Justice Thomas Page 14 of 118
  • 4. On or about January 11, 2011, this Court’s Clerk’s Office (Ruth Jones) The above-entitled petition for an extraordinary writ seeking unspecified relief was received on January 11, 2011. The papers are returned for the following reason(s): You must specify the type of relief being sought. Rule 20. Please see Rule 20 of the enclosed rules regarding the types of relief, i.e. petition for an extraordinary writ of habeas corpus, wirt (sic) of prohibition, writ of mandamus. The text of the petition has been photoreduced. The text of the petition and appendix must be typeset in a Century family (e.g., Century Expanded, New Century Schoolbook, or Century Schoolbook) 12-point type with 2-point leading between lines. The typeface of footnotes must be 10-point or larger wit (sic) 2-point or more leading between lines. Rule 33.1(b). Please note that it is not necessary to file a motion for leave to file this petition. Please correct and return the petition to this office as soon as possible. This office will retain one copy of the petition and your check in the amount of $300.00. PLEASE NOTE: Newsome’s January 2011 Petition for Extraordinary Writ was PHOTOCOPIED as noted. See EXHIBIT “BB” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. With the returned documents, Ms. Jones provided Newsome with a “Rules of the Supreme court of the United States” – Effective February 16, 2010. See EXHIBIT “C” – Rules attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Ms. Jones also provided Newsome with a “SAMPLE” Pleading from Dorothy Owens vs. National Health Corporation, et al. to use as a guide in the preparation of PFEW. See EXHIBIT “D” – Dorothy Owens pleading attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Furthermore, it appears from the receipt of this Court’s June 19, 2011 mailing (i.e. which was timely responded to) that it has used DILATORY tactics as a role being played in CONSPIRACIES to FINANCIALLY devastate Newsome for purposes of keeping her from litigating this matter. Said CRIMINAL and UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL practices by this Court may be established in how since bringing this lawsuit, ATTACKS have REPEATEDLY been made on her Bank Account(s), Employment UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY terminated, FRIVOLOUS lawsuit(s) being filed against her, etc. See EXHIBIT “GG” - GUIDE FOR PROSPECTIVE INDIGENT PETITIONERS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.5. Pursuant to Rule 17 (Procedure in an Original Action) of the Supreme Court of the United States as well as Rule 20 (Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ) of the Supreme Court - See EXHIBIT “C” Rules of Supreme Court attached hereto and incorporated by reference - and other statutes/laws governing said matters, Page 15 of 118
  • Newsome submitted her TIMELY March 12, 2011 PFEW in accordance with Rule 33 of the Supreme Court.6. Due to the EXTRAORDINARY and EXCEPTIONAL circumstances regarding this lawsuit, the Extraordinary Writ sought through the Petition of Extraordinary Writ CANNOT be limited to just ONE – i.e. in that there are MULITPLE violations and legal issues involved that are covered under a MULTIPLE number of Writs that are WITHIN this Court’s Jurisdiction under the “ALL WRITS” statute/laws governing said matters. Furthermore, this lawsuit is of a HISTORICAL as well as Legal GROUNDBREAKING magnitude that this Court may not have ever dealt with. Furthermore, involves matters that are of PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL Interests.7. Newsome’s Petition for Extraordinary Writ has been brought pursuant to 28 USC § 1651: 28 USC § 1651 Writs: (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue ALL writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. Section 376 provided: “. . . The Supreme Court. . . shall have power to issue ALL writs NOT specifically provided for by statute, which may be NECESSARY for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” See EXHIBIT “E” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Ex parte Fahey, 67 S.Ct. 1558 (1947) - United States Supreme Court has power to issue extraordinary writs . . .but such remedies should be resorted to only where appeal is clearly inadequate, and they are reserved for really extraordinary causes. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition): All Writs Act – A federal statute that gives the U.S. Supreme Court and all courts established by Congress the power to issue writs in aid of their jurisdiction and in conformity with the usages and principles of law. Black’s Law Dictionary – Second Pocket Edition: Writ: A court’s written order, in the name of a state or other competent legal authority, commanding the addressee to do or refrain from doing some specified act. Extraordinary Writ: A writ issued by a court exercising unusual or discretionary power. Original Writ: A writ commencing an action and directing the defendant to appear and answer. Page 16 of 118
  • U.S. v. Denedo, 129 S.Ct. 2213 (U.S.,2009) - Under the All Writs Act, a courts power to issue any form of relief, extraordinary or otherwise, is contingent on that courts subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comn, 125 S.Ct. 2 (U.S.,2004) - Authority granted to courts under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist, sitting as single Justice.) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comn, 125 S.Ct. 2 (U.S.,2004) - Authority granted to courts under the All Writs Act is appropriately exercised only: (1) when necessary or appropriate in aid of courts jurisdiction; and (2) when legal rights at issue are indisputably clear. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist, sitting as single Justice.) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). and other statutes/laws of the United States governing said matters.8. Because of a personal engagement to which Newsome was invited to at Florida A&M University regarding the her participation as one of the Grand Marshals (See EXHIBIT “F” attached hereto and incorporated by reference), she obtained the assistance of FedEX Office in the preparation of her March 12, 2011 PFEW so as NOT to miss the 60-DAY Deadline to file her Petition for Extraordinary Writ and still attend the Relays and special events at Florida A&M University. Furthermore, to support that Newsome’s PFEW was in compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, she requested that FedEX Office review the June 28, 2012 Booklet(s) returned and to verify they meet this Court’s pleading requirements. In so doing, Newsome was able to obtain the AFFIDAVIT of JOSH MILLER, which provides his testimony that Newsome’s March 12, 2012 PFEW is in COMPLIANCE with the Supreme Court Rules governing said pleadings. See EXHIBIT “G” – Affidavit of Josh Miller attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. FedEX Office SPECIALIZES in the PRINTING and production of documents – i.e. booklets as that required by this Court. Therefore, Newsome turned to FedEX Office Support Staff to assist her in the production of PFEW and relied upon the Dorothy Owens vs. National Health Corporation, et al. provided by this Court to assure compliance. Mr. Miller testifies to the fact that: Page 17 of 118
  • . . .received and viewed approximately four (4) Booklets entitled, “In ReVogel Denise Newsome On Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT ToThe Supreme Court Of Ohio” and is competent to provide the followingfindings in regards to the Supreme Court of the United States Rule 33regarding these pleadings: Rule 33 – Document Preparation Booklet Format; 8½ - by 11-Inch Paper Format 1. Booklet Format (a) Except for a document expressly permitted by these Rules to be submitted on 8½ by 11-inch paper, see e.g., Rules 21, 22, and 39, every document filed with the Court shall be prepared in a 6⅛ - by 9¼-inch booklet format using a standard typesetting process (e.g. hot metal, phocomposition, or computer typesetting) to produce text printed in typographic (as opposed to typewriter) characters. The process used must produce a clear, black image on white paper. The text must be reproduced with a clarity that equals or exceeds the output of a laser printer.That I have viewed and/or checked the four (4) Booklets returned bythe Supreme Court of the United States and testify to the following:(a) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To The Supreme Court Of Ohio” were prepared in 6⅛ - by 9¼-inch booklet format using a standard typesetting process – i.e. computer typesetting – to produce text printed in typographic characters and the process used is one that produces a clear, black image on white paper and is reproduced with a clarity that equals or exceeds the output of a laser printer as required by Rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. 2. The text of every booklet-format document, including any appendix thereto, shall be typeset in a Century family (e.g., Century Expanded, New Century Schoolbook, or Century Schoolbook) 12-point type with 2- point or more leading between lines. Quotations in excess of 50 words shall be indented. The typeface of footnotes shall be 10-point type with 2-point or more leading between lines. The text of the document must appear on both sides of the page. Page 18 of 118
  • (b) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To The Supreme Court Of Ohio” including the appendix is in typeset using Century 12- point font with 2-point or more leading between lines. That Quotations in excess of 50 words have been indented. That the typeface of footnotes are 10-point with 2-point or more leading between lines and the text of the document appears on both sides of the page as required by Rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. 3. Every booklet-format document shall be produced on paper that is opaque, unglazed, and not less than 60 pounds in weight, and shall have margins of at least three-fourths of an inch on all sides. The text field, including footnotes, may not exceed 4⅛ by 7⅛ inches. The document shall be bound firmly in at least two places along the left margin (saddle stitch or perfect binding preferred) so as to permit easy opening, and no part of the text should be obscured by the binding. Spiral, plastic, metal, or string bindings may not be used. Copies of patent documents, except opinions, may be duplicated in such size as is necessary in a separate appendix.(c) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To The Supreme Court Of Ohio” including the appendix have been produced on paper that is opaque, unglazed and not less than 60 pounds in weight and have margins of at least three-fourths of an inch on all sides. Furthermore, the text fields, including footnotes do NOT exceed 4⅛ by 7⅛ inches. The booklets have been firmly bound in at least two places along the left margin so as to permit easy opening and NO part of the text has been obscured by the binding (i.e. stapled binding which is permissible) as required by Rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. 4. Rule 33(d) - Every booklet-format document shall comply with the word limits shown on the chart in subparagraph 1(g) of this Rule. The word limits do NOT include the questions presented, the list of parties and the corporate disclosure statement, the table of contents, the table of cited authorities, the listing of counsel at the end of document, or any appendix. The word limit includes footnotes. Verbatim quotations required under Rule 14.1(f), if set out in the text of brief rather than the appendix, are also EXCLUDED. . . Page 19 of 118
  • (d) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To The Supreme Court Of Ohio” including the appendix comply with the word limits and was accompanied by the required “CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE” provided by Vogel Denise Newsome. The word limits do NOT include the questions presented, the list of parties, the corporate disclosure statement, the table of contents, the table of cited authorities, the listing of counsel at the end of document or any appendix and does NOT include verbatim quotations regarding the constitutional provisions, treaties, statutes, ordinances and regulations involved in the case, set out verbatim with appropriate citation that are required pursuant to Rule 14.1(f) and as required by Rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. 5. Every booklet-format document shall have a suitable cover consisting of 65-pound weight paper in the color indicated on the chart in subparagraph 1(g) of this Rule. If a separate appendix to any document is filed, the color of its cover shall be the same as that of the cover of the document it supports. . . .(e) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To The Supreme Court Of Ohio” were prepared using suitable cover (i.e. WHITE) consisting of 65-pound weight paper in the color indicated on the chart in subparagraph 1(g) of Rule 33 of the Supreme Court of the United States. 6. A document prepared under Rule 33.1 must be accompanied by a certificate signed by the attorney, the unrepresented party, or the preparer of the document stating that the brief complies with the word limitations. The person preparing the certificate may rely on the word count of the word processing system used to prepare the document. The word processing system must be set to include footnotes in the word count. The certificate must state the number of words in the document. The certificate shall accompany the document when it is presented to the Clerk for filing and shall be separate from it. . .(f) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To The Supreme Court Of Ohio” were prepared with an APPENDIX in accordance with Rules 14 of the Supreme Court of the United States specifically, Rule 14 (g)(i): Page 20 of 118
  • A concise statement of the case setting out the facts material to consideration of the questions presented, and also containing the following: (i) If review of a state-court judgment is sought, specification of the stage in the proceedings, both in the court of first instance and in the appellate courts, when the federal questions sought to be reviewed were raised; the method or manner of raising them and the way in which they were passed on by those courts; and pertinent quotations of specific portions of the record or summary thereof, with specific reference to the places in the record where the matter appears (e.g. court opinion, ruling on exception, portion of court’s charge and exception thereto, assignment of error), so as to show that the federal question was timely and properly raised and that this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment on a writ. . .When the portions of the record relied on under this subparagraph are voluminous, they shall be included in the appendix referred to in subparagraph 1(i) . . . and consists of only approximately Fifteen (15) distinctly numbered Appendixes which are NOT voluminous and consist of ONLY approximately 54 pages (i.e. containing double-sided printing) and follow the Petition For Extraordinary Writ in accordance to Rule 33 of the Supreme Court of the United States. ... 5. That the January 12, 2011 letter provided to Vogel Denise Newsome with the return of approximately four (4) of the 41 Petitions of Extraordinary Writ dated March 12, 2011, received by the Supreme Court of the United State on or about March 17, 2012 is NOT applicable and neither does it address ANY violations under Rule 33 of the Supreme Court of the United States and may have been returned in ERROR without careful review by the Court. Furthermore, appear to be ERRONEOUS findings relying on a PRE-DATED letter of January 12, 2011 for document received by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 17, 2011 – i.e. a date AFTER the corrected Petitions of Extraordinary Writ.Therefore, supporting that this Court’s REPEAT FAILURE toprovide Newsome with the DEFICIENCIES as done with herJanuary 6, 2011 pleading, is a direct and proximate result that thereare NO errors with Newsome’s March 12, 2011 PFEW submitted tothis Court. Page 21 of 118
  • 9. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That at this time Newsome will NOT be submitting any additional and/or new copies of the Petition For Extraordinary because her MARCH 12, 2011 Petition Writ, For Extraordinary Writ submitted and RECEIVED by this Court is in COMPLIANCE with the Supreme Court of the United States Guidelines. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/031211-petition- forextraordinarywrit-exhibits-final http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/031211-usps-mailingreceipts While this Court’s May 4, 2012 letter is signed by Redmond K. Barnes, it was submitted under the name of William Suter and with his approval. While it does NOT take much for this Court’s IGNORANCE and the STUPIDITY to show through Mr. Suter’s May 4, 2012 letter, it is important that Newsome point out the following in that this matter has become one of PUBLIC/GLOBAL Interest (i.e. Nationally and INTERNATIONALLY), and, therefore, it is IMPORTANT for FOREIGN Nations/Leaders/Citizens to see for themselves how the HIGHEST Court in the United States of America engages in CRIMINAL activities and their ROLE in CONSPIRACIES to deprive Newsome EQUAL protection of the laws, IMMUNITIES and PRIVILEGES under the laws and DUE PROCESS of laws as DESPERATELY scramble in trying to get United they States of America President Barack Obama back into the WHITE HOUSE and to keep his CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs HIDDEN from PUBLIC/GLOBAL views and/or eyes! The record evidence supports that the Supreme Court of the United States of America received Newsome’s MARCH 12, 2012 Petition of Extraordinary Writ on or about March 16, 2011. Furthermore, that this Court on or about May 6, 2011, received Newsome’s TIMELY May 3, 2011 "Response To March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2011, Supreme Court Of The United States Letters - Identifying Extraordinary Writ(s) To Be Filed and Writ(s) Under All Writs Act To Be Filed." http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/050311-ltr- justicerobertssuterfinal http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/050311-rand-paulletter which answers this Court’s letters of March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2011, as to what ORIGINAL LawsuitS are being sought to be filed under the “ALL Writs Act” which falls within this Court’s JURISDICTION and said “ALL Writs Act” Page 22 of 118
  • actions which are LEGALLY and LAWFULLY authorized to be filed as stated in May 3, 2011 Responsive pleading.10. Newsome has timely requested that FedEX Office provide her with an estimate of how much it would cost to REPRINT and produce the PFEW Booklets if this Court does not have them. According to the Affidavit of Josh Miller at EXHIBIT “G,” FedEX Office estimates that the cost for RE-DOING this job is approximately $304.00 and DOES NOT include postage and other costs associated with having to RE-DO this job if this Court no longer has the pleadings. See ¶6, Page 5 of said Affidavit. Newsome is NOT required to bear the costs to RE-DO pleadings that are already in COMPLIANCE and this Court has FAILED to address DEFICIENCIES (if any – because there are NONE) with the March 12, 2011 PFEW.11. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE: That it is both UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL for this Court to engage in criminal activities/conspiracies to obstruct the administration of justice and the filing of pleadings with this Court that meet the pleading requirements and the $300.00 Filing Fee has been provided. United States Money Order no. 19256593937 which accompanies this instant filing:12. PLEASE BE ADVISED: That according to this Court’s letter of August 1, 2011, the ONLY action required to get the Petition For was the providing of the “$300.00” Extraordinary Writ FILING FEE to replace check that had expired. Newsome submitted the “FILING FEE” to her Kentucky Senator Rand Paul requesting he handle this on her behalf on or about August 31, 2011/September 1, Page 23 of 118
  • 2011 through pleading entitled, "UNITED STATES KENTUCKY SENATORRAND PAUL: Request Of Status Of INVESTIGATION(S) Request RegardingUnited States President Barack Obama and Government Agencies/Officials;Assistance In Getting Petition For Extraordinary Writ Filed; and Assistance InReceipt of Relief PRESENTLY/IMMEDIATELY Due Newsome - WRITTENResponse Requested By THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011." In which,this Court is FULLY aware of because it was provided with acopy of document(s). http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/083111-ltr- senatorrandpaulcorrected-versionwithmailingreceipts http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/083111-rand- pauluspsmokyinforedacted-forwebsiteversionPLEASE BE ADVISED: That this Court was advised as early asAugust 31, 2011, that United States of America Kentucky Senator Rand Paul hadbeen provided with the “FILING FEE” for submittal to this Court to get the PetitionFor Extraordinary Writ filed; however, from Newsome’s research, he too appears tobe engaged in CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES with Baker Donelson and LibertyMutual Insurance Company in that Senator Rand Paul has benefitted fromBIG/MAJOR FINANCIAL Donations: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/paul-randfinancial-contributionsIt appears that since going PUBLIC/GLOBAL in EXPOSING the CORRUPTION inthe BRANCHES of the United States of America’s Government, that on or aboutJune 4, 2012, United States of America Kentucky Senator Rand Paul hasRETURNED the Money Order(s) submitted to his attention for handling toNewsome. United States of America Kentucky Senator Rand Paul stating in part: “Thank you for contacting me regarding the legality of the present administration. While I respect your concerns my office cannot file legal documents on your behalf. I have therefore instructed my staff to return the items set including the money orders. Page 24 of 118
  • Enclosed are the following items: . . . - 1 Postal Money Order Serial Number 19256593937 - 1 Postal Money Order Serial Number 19256907306 - Documents dated Aug. 31, 2011 - “Pink Slip” documentSee EXHIBIT “H” copy of the June 4, 2012 Letter ONLY attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. – i.e. a REQUEST which isINDEED “WITHIN the JURISDICTION” of the United States Senate and has beenTIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY submitted to United States ofAmerica Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for PROCESSING and HANDLING.Nevertheless, instead Newsome and the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE have to now deal withthe “FRIVOLOUS” ATTEMPTS of Senator Rand Paul and CONGRESS to getUnited States of America President Barack Obama to the 2012 Presidential Elections.Therefore, at this time, the ONLY Response this Courtis going to get is this instant pleading and AGAIN,Newsome’s REITERATION of the May 3, 2011pleading entitled, "Response To March 17, 2011 andApril 27, 2011, Supreme Court Of The United StatesLetters - Identifying Extraordinary Writ(s) To BeFiled and Writ(s) Under All Writs Act To Be Filed:" http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/050311-ltr-justicerobertssuterfinalsubmitted for filing with the Supreme Court of the United States of America andANSWERS this Court’s question(s) as to the Lawsuit(s) sought to be filed. Throughthis instant filing, Newsome further provide: RESPONSE TO JUNE 28, 2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RECEIVED – REQUEST FOR AN ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT SOUGHT TO BE FILED UNDER THE “ALL WRITS” STATUTE/LAW AND GOVERNING UNITED STATES LAWS – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS – REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTwhich CLEARLY sets forth the ORIGINAL actions under the “ALL WritsAct” that is within the JURISDICTION of the Supreme Court of the United Statesof America to handle and process! Page 25 of 118
  • 13. PLEASE BE ADVISED that at this time, Newsome is requesting in WRITING by Friday, SEPTEMBER 14, 2012, that the Supreme Court of the United States/William K. Suter provide her with what it is this Court does NOT understand about the May 3, 2011 Responsive Pleading submitted and RECEIVED by the Supreme Court of the United States. Furthermore, by Friday, SEPTEMBER 14, 2012, CLEARLY SET FORTH the DEFICIENCIES (if any) in the March 12, 2012 Petition for Extraordinary Writ submitted to this Court for filing and received on or about MARCH 17, 2011: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/031211- petition-forextraordinarywrit-exhibits-final.14. As shared, these matters have become a matter of PUBLIC/GLOBAL interest both Nationally and INTERNATIONALLY. Therefore, please advise Newsome whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States of America is REFUSING to file her Lawsuit under the “ALL Writs Act” and, if so, WHY?15. On or about March 17, 2011, this Court advised Newsome that: The above-entitled petition for an extraordinary writ seeking unspecified relief was received on March 17, 2011. Please inform this office by letter, as soon as possible, what type of extraordinary writ you are seeking to file, i.e. extraordinary writ of mandamus, mandamus/prohibition, habeas corpus. This office will retain all the copies of the petition. See EXHIBIT “I” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. PLEASE NOTE: NOTHING in this Court’s March 17, 2011 letter advising that Newsome’s PFEW does NOT meet the pleading requirements because it DOES! All this Court is NOW requiring is that Newsome “inform this office by letter, as soon as possible, what TYPE of extraordinary writ” she is seeking. On or about April 22, 2011, Newsome TIMELY responded to this Court’s March 17, 2011 request. See EXHIBIT “J” - Response To March 17, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States’ Letter (i.e. wherein at about Pages 18 and 19, Newsome provides this Court with the LIST of WRITS to be filed: a. Original Writ Original Writ: A writ commencing an action and directing the defendant to appear and answer. Page 26 of 118
  • Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has a continuing power to issue extraordinary writs in aid of either its original jurisdiction2 including as a part of jurisdiction(s) the exercise of general supervisory control over the court system – state or federal: 3 b. Writ of Conspiracy4 Writ of Conspiracy: A writ against one who conspired to injure the plaintiff. . . Salinas v. U.S., 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997) - Conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not substantive crime ensues, for is distinct evil, dangerous to conspiracy public, and so punishable in itself. It is possible for person to conspire for commission of crime by third person. U.S. v. Schaffer, 586 F.3d 414 (C.A.6.Ohio,2009) - Because the illegality of an agreement to commit an unlawful act, as the basis of a conspiracy charge, does not depend upon the achievement of its ends, it is irrelevant that it may be objectively impossible for the conspirators to commit the substantive offense; indeed, it is the mutual understanding or agreement itself that is criminal, and whether the object of the scheme actually is, as the parties believe it to be, unlawful is irrelevant. c. Writ of Course Writ of Course: A writ issued as a matter of course or granted as a matter of right. Gormley v. Clark, 10 S.Ct. 554 (1890) - A court of equity has power to issue writs of assistance or possession for the purpose of enforcing its orders and decrees. 2 See Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U.S. 552, 553, 2 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed. 811 (1883) (Court has authority to issue writ);Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1885) (“act of congress cannot have the effect andoperation to annul the decision of the court already rendered); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 374, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (“Having thisgeneral power to issue the writ, the court may issue it in the exercise of original jurisdiction where it has original jurisdiction. . . “); seealso Wagner, Original Jurisdiction of National Supreme Courts, 33 St. John’s L. Rev. 217 (1959); cf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137, 147, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (“The term ‘appellate jurisdiction’ is to be taken in its larger sense, and implies in its nature theright of superintending the inferior tribunals.”). 3 See e.g., Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624, 99 S.Ct. 1523, 59 L.Ed. 2d 619 (1979) (“When a lower. . .court refuses togive effect to, or misconstrues our mandate, its actions are controlled by this Court. . .”); MCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634, 635, 60S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992 (1940) (Court directed . . . Court judge to vacate order and retry cases expediently); Ex parte United States, 242U.S. 27, 52, 37 S.Ct. 72, 61 L.Ed. 129 (1916) (mandamus proper remedy for enforcing . . . when. . . Court that passed it has defeated itsexecution). - - Vol. 23 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 520.02[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). 4 Respondent (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 27 of 118
  • In re Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 41 S.Ct. 288 (U.S.Ohio,1921) - Prohibition will issue if the lower court is clearly without jurisdiction over petitioner, who, at the outset, objected to the jurisdiction, had preserved his rights by appropriate procedure, and had no other remedy. ..d. Writ of Detinue Writ of Detinue: A common law action to recover personal property wrongfully taken by another. “A claim in detinue lies at the suit of a person who has an immediate right to possession of the goods against the person who is in actual possession of them, and who, upon proper demand, fails or refuses to deliver them, and who, upon proper demand, fails or refuses to deliver them up WITHOUT lawful excuse. Detinue at the present day has two main uses. In the FIRST place, the plaintiff may desire the SPECIFIC restitution of his chattels and NOT damages for their conversion. He will then sue in detinue, NOT in trover. In the SECOND place, the plaintiff will have to sue in detinue if the defendant sets up no claim of ownership and has not been guilty of trespass. . . Poindexter v. Greenhow, 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885) - In cases of detinue the action is purely defensive on the part of the plaintiff. Its object is merely to resist an attempted wrong and to restore the status in quo as it was when the right to be vindicated was invaded. .. . . Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Howell Bros. Truck & Auto Repair Inc., 325 So.2d 562 (1975) - Where defendants possession of property is wrongful, a demand is not necessary to recover damages for detention.e. Writ of Entry Writ of Entry: A writ that allows a person WRONGFULLY disposed of real property to enter and RETAKE the property. Page 28 of 118
  • f. Writ of Exigi Facias Writ of Exigi Facias: That you cause to be demanded. Exigent: Requiring IMMEDIATE action or aid; URGENT. Blacks Law Dictionary - Scire Facias: A writ requiring the person against whom it is issued to appear and show cause why some matter of record should not be annulled or vacated, or why a dormant judgment against that person should not be revived. Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (U.S.Ky.,1825) - Under Judiciary Act . . . providing that court shall have power to issue writs of scire facias . . . and all other writs not specially provided by statute which may be necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction, the general term “writs” is NOT restrained to original process or to process anterior to judgment. Waldens Lessee v. Craigs Heirs, 39 U.S. 147 (U.S.Ky.,1840) - Demurrers to writs of scire facias raise only questions of law on facts stated in writ.g. Writ of Formedon Writ of Formedon: A writ of right for claiming entailed property held by another. A writ of formedon was the highest remedy available to a tenant. Monagas v. Vidal, 170 F.2d 99 (1948) - An action of “revendication” is an action by which a man demands a thing of which he claims to be the owner, and action relates to immovables as well as movables, and to corporeal or incorporeal things. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. Voudoumas, 151 A. 81 (1930) - Writ of entry is essentially possessory in character.h. Writ of Injunction Writ of Injunction: A court order commanding or preventing an action. - - To get an injunction, the complainant MUST show that there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law and that an IRREPARABLE injury will result unless the relief is granted. Page 29 of 118
  • U.S. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 72 S.Ct. 690 (1952) - Notwithstanding that injunctive relief is MANDATORY in form, such relief is to undo existing conditions, because otherwise they are likely to continue. Porter v. Lee, 66 S.Ct. 1096 (U.S.Ky.,1946) - Where a defendant with notice in an injunction proceeding contemplates the acts sought to be enjoined, the court may by MANATORY injunction restore the status quo.i. Writ of Mandamus Writ of Mandamus: A writ issued by a superior court to COMPEL a lower court or a government officer to PERFORM MANDATORY and purely MINISTERIAL duties CORRECTLY. “Alternative Mandamus: A mandamus issued upon the FIRST application of relief, COMMANDING the defendant either to PERFORM the act DEMANDED or to APPEAR before the court at a specified time to SHOW CAUSE for not performing it.” “Peremptory Mandamus: An ABSOLUTE and UNQUALIFIED command to the defendant to DO the act in question.” Heckler v. Ringer, 104 S.Ct. 2013 (1984) - Common-law writ of mandamus is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all of the avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361. U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 51 S.Ct. 502 (1931) - Writ of mandamus will issue only where duty to be performed is ministerial and obligation to act peremptory and plainly defined. Supervisors v. U.S., 85 U.S. 71 (1873) - The office of a writ of mandamus is not to create duties but to compel the discharge of those already existing. Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. 272 (1850) - A mandamus is only to compel performance of some ministerial, as well as legal duty. Heckler v. Ringer, 104 S.Ct. 2013 (1984) - Common-law writ of mandamus is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all of the avenues of Page 30 of 118
  • relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361. U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 51 S.Ct. 502 (1931) - Writ of mandamus will issue only where duty to be performed is ministerial and obligation to act peremptory and plainly defined. Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. 272 (1850) - A mandamus is only to compel performance of some ministerial, as well as legal duty.j. Writ of Possession Writ of Possession: A writ issued to RECOVER the possession of land. Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 12 S.Ct. 659 (1892) - Injunction, being merely a preventive remedy, will not lie for the purpose of restoring to possession one who claims to have been wrongfully evicted from lands under a writ of possession issued in a suit to which he was not a party.k. Writ of Praecipe Writ of Praecipe: At common law, a writ ORDERING a defendant to DO some act or EXPLAIN why inaction is appropriate. “Pracipe Quod Reddat – A writ directing the defendant to RETURN certain property – was the proper writ when the plaintiff’s action was for a SPECIFIC thing; as for the RECOVERY of a debt certain, or for the RESTORATION of such a chattel, or for giving up such a house, or so much land . . .”l. Writ of Protection Writ of Protection: A writ to PROTECT a witness in a judicial proceeding who is threatened with arrest. Levy v. Wallis, 4 U.S. 167 (1799) - The lien of a levy on personal property is not lost, though the goods are left in the hands of the defendant; unless there be fraud. Page 31 of 118
  • m. Writ of Recaption Writ of Recaption: A writ allowing a plaintiff to RECOVER goods and damages from a defendant who makes a second distress while a replevin action for a previous distress is pending. “Replevin – A writ OBTAINED from a court AUTHORIZING the RETAKING of personal property wrongfully taken or detained. - - ‘The action of replevin lies, where specific PERSONAL property has been WRONGFULLY taken and is WRONGFULLY detained, to RECOVER possession of the property, TOGETHER with DAMAGES for its detention. To support the action it is NECESSARY: (a) That the property shall be personal. (b) That the Plaintiff at the time of suit, shall be entitled to the IMMEDIATE possession. (c) That (at common law) the defendant shall have WRONGFULLY taken the property (replevin in the cepit). But, by statute in most states, the action will now also lie where the property was WRONGFULLY detained, though it was lawfully obtained in the first instance (replevin in the detinet). (d) That the property shall be WRONGFULLY detained by the defendant at the time of suit. Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading § 49, at 120 (Henry Winthorp Ballantine ed., 3d ed. 1923).’”n. Writ of Prohibition Writ of Prohibition: (1) A law or order that FORBIDS a certain action. (2) An extraordinary writ issued by an appellate court to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or to prevent a nonjudicial officer or entity from exercising a power. “Prohibition is a kind of common-law injunction to prevent an unlawful assumption of jurisdiction . . . It is a common-law injunction against governmental usurpation, as where one is called coram non judice (before a judge Page 32 of 118
  • unauthorized to take cognizance of the affair), to answer in a tribunal that has no legal cognizance of the cause. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, board, or person exercising judicial functions in a manner or by means not within its jurisdiction or discretion. Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading § 341, at 542 (Henry Winthorp Ballantine ed., 3d ed. 1923).” U.S. v. Hoffman, 71 U.S. 158 (1866) - The “writ of prohibition” is one which commands person to whom it is directed not to do something which by relators suggestion, court is informed he is about to do; and if thing be already done, writ of prohibition could not undo it, for such would require affirmative act; and only effect of writ of prohibition is to suspend all action, and to prevent any further proceeding in prohibited direction.o. Writ of Review Writ of Review: A general form of process issuing from an appellate court to BRING UP FOR REVIEW the RECORD of the proceedings in the court below. Zuber v. Allen, 90 S.Ct. 314 (1969) - When action is taken on a record administrative department cannot then present testimony in court to remedy the gaps in the record, any more than arguments of counsel on review can substitute for an agencys failure to make findings or give reasons. La Buy v. Howes Leather Company, 77 S.Ct. 309 (U.S.,1957) - Where subject concerns enforcement of rules which by law it is duty of Supreme Court to formulate and put in force, mandamus should issue to prevent such action thereunder as is so palpably improper as to place it beyond the scope of the rule invoked.p. Writ of Supersedeas Writ of Supersedeas: A writ that SUSPENDS a judgment creditor’s power to levy execution, usu. pending appeal.q. Writ of SUPERVISORY CONTROL Writ of SUPERVISORY CONTROL: A writ issued to CORRECT an ERRONEOUS ruling made by a lower court EITHER when there is NO appeal or when an appeal CANNOT provide Page 33 of 118
  • adequate relief and the ruling WILL RESULT in GROSS INJUSTICE. Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Montana, in and for Rosebud County, 96 S.Ct. 943 (1976) - Writ of supervisory control is available only in original proceeding in . . .Supreme Court and, although it may issue in broad range of circumstances, it is not equivalent to an appeal. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257(3). U.S. v. Comstock, 130 S.Ct. 1949 (U.S.,2010) - At common law, one who takes charge of a third person is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control that person to prevent him from causing reasonably foreseeable bodily harm to others. r. Writ of Securitate Pacis Writ of Securitate Pacis: A writ for someone FEARING bodily harm from another, as when the person has been THREATENED with VIOLENCE. s. Extraterritorial Writs Extraterritorial Writs: Beyond the geographic limits of a particular jurisdiction. Corporation created by a state is citizen of that state within meaning of Constitution and United States statute investing Supreme Court with original jurisdiction of controversies between state and citizens of other states. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 US 265, 32 L Ed 239, 8 S Ct. 1370 (1888) (ovrld in part on other grounds by Milwaukee County v M.E. White Co. (1935) 296 US 268, 80 L Ed 220, 56 S. Ct. 229)). under the ALL WRITS ACT) attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.16. On or about April 27, 2011 [i.e the SAME DATE United States President Barack Obama releases a FAKE/FORGED copy of Certificate of Live Birth, this Court advised Newsome that: Your letter and attachments were received in this office on April 26, 2011, and are returned for the reason set forth in my letter dated March 17, 2011, copy enclosed. You have failed to identify the type of extraordinary writ you are seeking to file. See EXHIBIT “K” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Page 34 of 118
  • PLEASE NOTE: AGAIN, NOTHING in this Court’s April 27, 2011 letter advising that Newsome’s PFEW does NOT meet the pleading requirements because it DOES! This Court is advising Newsome that she has “failed to identify the type of extraordinary writ” she is seeking. On or about May 3, 2011, Newsome TIMELY responded to this Court’s April 27, 2011 letter. See EXHIBIT “L” - Response To March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2011, Supreme Court Of The United States’ Letters – Identifying Extraordinary Writ(s) To Be Filed and Writ(s) Under All Writs Act To Be Filed (i.e. wherein at about Page 2, Newsome AGAIN provides this Court with the LIST of WRITS to be filed: 1) Original Writ 2) Writ of Conspiracy 3) Writ of Course 4) Writ of Detinue 5) Writ of Entry 6) Writ of Exigi Facias 7) Writ of Formedon 8) Writ of Injunction 9) Writ of Mandamus 10) Writ of Possession 11) Writ of Praecipe 12) Writ of Protection 13) Writ of Recaption 14) Writ of Prohibition 15) Writ of Review 16) Writ of Supersedeas 17) Writ of Supervisory Control 18) Writ of Securitate Pacis 19) Extraterritorial Writs under the ALL Writs Act!17. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusion provided in the EM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that this matter is of “PUBLIC IMPORTANCE” and is of PUBLIC/NATIONAL security in that it supports the COVER-UP of Respondents, President Barack Obama, his Administration and the United States Government of CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL/CIVIL VIOLATIONS and TERRORIST/RACIST/SUPREMACIST practices. Furthermore, the record evidence will SUPPORT a WILLFUL disregard of legislative policy, rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, which are a DIRECT and PROXIMATE RESULT of the SERIOUS HARDSHIP and LEGAL INJUSTICES leveled against Newsome, members of her class and/or citizens of the United States. This instant action has been brought seeking the filing of ORIGINAL ACTION and issuance of EXTRAORDINARY WRITS because of the extraordinary circumstances sustained by the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in the EM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices – for purposes of confining the inferior courts and Administrative Agency(s) addressed, to the lawful exercise of their prescribed jurisdiction and to compel them to exercise authority MANDATORILY required and GOVERNED by statutes/laws. Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.Ed 728, 135 U.S. App.Dc. 160 on remand 259 A.2d 592 (1969) – Among the factors to be considered in determining whether prerogative writs should issue are whether the matter is of “PUBLIC IMPORTANCE,” whether the policy against piecemeal appeals would be frustrated, whether there has been a WILLFUL disregard of legislative policy, or of rules of the higher court, and whether refusal to issue the writ may work a serious hardship on the parties. Page 35 of 118
  • Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84 S.Ct. 769, 376 U.S. 240, 11 L.Ed.2d 674 (1964) – Extraordinary writs are reserved for really extraordinary causes, and then only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or compel it to exercise its authority when it is duty to do so.18. Newsome seeks any and all applicable relief KNOWN to the Supreme Court of the United States to correct the injustices/miscarriages of justice addressed herein as well as in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices. Newsome believes that the record evidence will further support Orders entered by judges with KNOWLEDGE that they lacked jurisdiction to act in legal action/lawsuit. Anderson v. McLaughlin, 263 F.2d 723 (1959) – (n.2) Authority conferred by statute authorizing courts to issue ALL writs necessary is NOT confined to issuance of writs in aid of jurisdiction already acquired by appeal but extends to those cases which are within court’s appellate jurisdiction although NO appeal has yet been perfected. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S.21, 25, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185. (n. 3) Extraordinary writs authorized to be issued by courts established by Act of Congress should be issued only under unique and compelling circumstances. De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1130, 325 U.S. 212, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945) - . . . petitioners applied to this court for certiorari under § 262. That section provides in part: “The Supreme Court. . . shall have power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” . . . When Congress withholds interlocutory reviews, § 262 can, of course be availed to correct a mere error in the exercise of conceded judicial power. But when a court has no judicial power to do what it purports to do – when its action is not mere error or usurpation of power – the situation falls precisely within the allowable use of § 262. We proceed, therefore, to inquire whether the . . . Court is empowered to enter the order under attack. Also see, 80th Congress House Report No. 308.19. While it appears this Court is attempting to TRICK Newsome into LIMITING the Writs she brings before this Court and to select between THREE (3) options – i.e. “extraordinary writ of mandamus, mandamus/prohibition, habeas corpus,” it is CLEAR to Newsome that this Court is attempting to DEPRIVE her EQUAL protection of the laws and rights secured/guaranteed under the Rules of the Supreme Court, United States Constitution and other statutes/laws governing said matters. For instance, in: United States of America vs. Real Property and Premises Known as 63–39 Trimble Road, 860 F.Supp. 72 (1972) - [1] United States was entitled to writ of assistance under All Writs Act authorizing United States Marshals Service to take possession of real property and premises that had been ordered forfeited to United States, to evict all occupants and their personal property, Page 36 of 118
  • and to dispose of premises in accordance with decree of forfeiture; claimant and occupant were afforded ample notice and opportunity to contest their removal and failed to voice any arguments in opposition, government had procured ready, willing and able purchasers for property, and claimant had threatened to destroy premises. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a) [2] All Writs Act authorizes district courts to issue writs of assistance to enforce final judgments. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a) See EXHIBIT “M” USA vs. Real Property matter attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 20. Newsome believes this legal action meets the prerequisites in that: (a) the writ will be in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction – [28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)] “The U.S. Supreme Court has a continuing power to issue extraordinary writs in aid of either its original jurisdiction5 including as a part of jurisdiction(s) the exercise of general supervisory control over the court system – state or federal.”6 (b) exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers - While there need NOT be a laundry list of “exceptional circumstances,” the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that the peremptory writs are drastic and extraordinary remedies that must be reserved for only truly extraordinary cases (as the extraordinary circumstances in this instant lawsuit).7 5 See Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U.S. 552, 553, 2 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed. 811 (1883) (Court has authority to issue writ);Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1885) (“act of congress cannot have the effect andoperation to annul the decision of the court already rendered); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 374, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (“Having thisgeneral power to issue the writ, the court may issue it in the exercise of original jurisdiction where it has original jurisdiction. . . “); seealso Wagner, Original Jurisdiction of National Supreme Courts, 33 St. John’s L. Rev. 217 (1959); cf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137, 147, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (“The term ‘appellate jurisdiction’ is to be taken in its larger sense, and implies in its nature theright of superintending the inferior tribunals.”). 6 See e.g., Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624, 99 S.Ct. 1523, 59 L.Ed. 2d 619 (1979) (“When a lower. . .court refuses togive effect to, or misconstrues our mandate, its actions are controlled by this Court. . .”); MCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634,635, 60 S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992 (1940) (Court directed . . . Court judge to vacate order and retry cases expediently); Ex parte UnitedStates, 242 U.S. 27, 52, 37 S.Ct. 72, 61 L.Ed. 129 (1916) (mandamus proper remedy for enforcing . . . when. . . Court that passed it hasdefeated its execution). - - Vol. 23 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 520.02[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). 7 See Bagley v. Byrd, 534 U.S. 1301, 122 S.Ct. 419, 419-420, 151 L.Ed. 2d 370 (2001) (Stevens, J., in chambers) (Court willdeny applications for stay of lower-court proceedings pending Court’s disposition of . . . petition unless application demonstrates thatdenial of stay will either cause irreparable harm or affect Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to act on . . . petition); In re Michael Sindram,498 U.S. 177, 179, 111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed. 2d 599 (1991) (petitioner “identifies no ‘drastic’ circumstances to justify extraordinaryrelief” as required by Sup. Ct. R. 20.1); Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed. 305 (1967) (“only exceptionalcircumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy”); Ex parteFahey, 332 U.S. 258, 260, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947) (“These remedies should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearlyinadequate remedy.”). Page 37 of 118
  • (c) adequate relief cannot be had in any other form - Newsome seeks to bring, the writ sought in that it is permissible and warranted as a matter of law - Ex parte Harding, 219 U.S. 363, 374; 31 S.Ct. 324, 55 L.Ed. 252 (1911) (writ only applicable to exceptional cases) – and is sustained by facts, evidence and legal conclusions of the good-faith acts of Newsome to seek adequate relief through appropriate legal recourse – i.e. due to no avail because of the conspiracy(s) leveled against her. (d) adequate relief cannot be had in any other court below – the record evidence, facts and legal conclusions will support a PATTERN of unlawful/illegal acts leveled against Newsome (i.e. moreover, CONSPIRACIES). The record evidence will further support efforts by lower courts to “CLOSE DOORS OF COURT(S) to Newsome.” Thus, warranting and supporting the relief Newsome seeks through bringing Extraordinary Writ. [Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 165, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (remedies at law not inadequate). as well as for reasons known to this Court to deter/prevent the criminal/civil wrongs addressed herein and in “PFEW” and “EM/ORS.”21. Newsome believes that while the following “Questions Presented For Review: in PFEW” (1) Whether Newsome’s “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” was a timely pleading in accordance with United States Supreme Court Rules 22, 23 and/or 33. Whether the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court forward Newsome’s “EM/ORS” to individual justice (Chief Justice John G. Roberts) to which it was addressed. Whether Newsome was deprived equal protection of the laws, equal privileges and immunities and due process of laws in the United States Supreme Court’s handling of “EM/ORS.” (2) Whether “EM/ORS” is within the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court. Whether the United States Supreme Court is attempting to deprive Newsome rights secured under the Constitution, other laws of the United States, equal protection of the laws, equal privileges and immunities, and due process of laws in the handling of “EM/ORS.” (3) Whether Newsome is entitled to the “Emergency Relief” sought in “EM/ORS” and pleadings filed with the United States Supreme Court. Page 38 of 118
  • (4) Whether Newsome is entitled to IMMEDIATE temporary injunctive relief and emergency relief sought in “EM/ORS” prior to disposition of PFEW – i.e. for instance as set forth in: Section 706(f)(2) of Title VII authorizes the Commission to seek temporary injunctive relief before final disposition of a charge when a preliminary investigation indicates that prompt judicial action is necessary to carry out the purposes of Title VII. Temporary or preliminary relief allows a court to stop retaliation before it occurs or continues. Such relief is appropriate if there is a substantial likelihood that the challenged action will be found to constitute unlawful retaliation, and if the charging party and/or EEOC will likely suffer irreparable harm because of retaliation. Although courts have ruled that financial hardships are not irreparable, other harms that accompany loss of a job may be irreparable. - - For example, in one case forced retirees showed irreparable harm and qualified for a preliminary injunction where they lost work and future prospects for work consequently suffering emotional distress, depression, a contracted social life, and other related harms.(5) Whether the United States Supreme Court in handling of this lawsuit, is attempting to obstruct justice and provide Respondent(s) with an unlawful/illegal and undue advantage in lawsuit due to bias and prejudice towards Newsome.(6) Whether the laws of the United States are equally applied to African-Americans/Black as those similarly situated. Whether the United States has a “longstanding” history of knowingly discriminating against African-Americans/Blacks in the application of the laws. Whether Newsome has been discriminated against in the application of the laws of the United States.(7) Whether the United States Supreme Court Justices/Administration have bias, prejudices and/or discriminatory animus towards Newsome. Whether Newsome is required to know of any bias, prejudices or discriminatory animus that Judges/Justices may have against her.(8) Whether the United States Supreme Court Justices/Administration is attempting to COVER UP the criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome. Whether a “Conflict of Interest” exist in the United States Supreme Court’s handling of this matter. Whether the United States Supreme Court has advised Newsome and parties to this action of any potential “Conflict of Interest.”(9) What relationship (if any) the United States Supreme Court, its justices and/or employees have with the law firm of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees and clients (i.e. such as Liberty Mutual Insurance Company).(10) What relationship (if any) the United States Government and/or Government Agencies and employees have with the law firm of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees and clients (i.e. such as Liberty Mutual Insurance Company). Page 39 of 118
  • (11) Whether the United States Supreme Court is engaging in “dilatory” practices for purposes of financially devastating Newsome for purposes of preventing her from litigating this matter and purposes of providing opposing parties with an undue/unlawful/illegal advantage in lawsuit.(12) Whether the United States Supreme Court has an obligation to correct the legal wrongs made known to it and/or that it has knowledge of. Whether the United States Supreme Court is required to report criminal/civil wrongs reported to it and/or made known through pleadings (i.e. as “PFEW”) filed with it.(13) Whether attorneys are governed by the Code of Professional Conduct and/or similar statutes/laws governing practice before the court(s) and representation of clients. Whether Judges/Justices have a duty to report and/or initiate the applicable proceedings against attorneys/lawyers who violate the Code of Professional Conduct and/or similar statutes/laws governing the practice of law.(14) Whether Judges/Justices are governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct and/or similar statutes/laws governing practice of the laws. Whether Judges/Justices have a duty to report and/or initiate the applicable proceedings against judges/justices who violate the Code of Judicial Conduct and/or similar statutes/laws governing the practice of law.(15) Whether Judges/Justices have usurped authority and/or abused power in the handling of legal matters to which Newsome is a party.(16) Whether Judge(s) presiding over legal matters to which Newsome is a party have been INDICTED and/or IMPEACHED as a direct and proximate result of unlawful/illegal practices. Whether Newsome timely, properly and adequately addressed concerns of unlawful/illegal and unethical practices of judges/justices before the appropriate government entity (i.e. court(s) and/or agency).(17) Whether the INDICTMENT and/or IMPEACHMENT of judges/justices or attorneys/lawyers affect legal matters in which they are involved.(18) Whether judges/justices have subjected Newsome to discriminatory treatment in the handling of legal matters to which she is a party.(19) Whether Newsome is entitled to “emergency” injunctive relief and/or emergency relief pending the resolution of Petition for Extraordinary Writ. Whether United States Supreme Court has a duty to mitigate damages and to protect Newsome from further irreparable injury/harm she has sustained.(20) Whether Newsome is entitled to have “ISSUES” raised addressed upon request(s). Page 40 of 118
  • (21) Whether Newsome is entitled to “Findings of Fact” and “Conclusion of Law” upon request(s).(22) Whether lower courts’ decisions are “arbitrary” and/or “capricious” – i.e. can be sustained by facts, evidence and legal conclusions. Moreover, contrary to laws governing said matters. Contrary to rulings of this Court on similar matters.(23) Whether Judge John Andrews West has jurisdiction/legal authority to preside over lower court action where “Affidavit of Disqualification” and Criminal “FBI Complaint” have been filed against him.(24) Whether Judge John Andrews West owe a specific duty to Newsome to recuse himself from Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas action.(25) Whether Newsome is entitled to know of “Conflict of Interest” that exist between factfinder(s)/judges/justices and/or opposing parties/counsel.(26) Whether Judges/Justices owe a specific duty to Newsome to recuse themselves when “conflict of interest” exists. Whether Judges/Justices remained on the bench in legal actions where Newsome is a party with knowledge there was a “conflict of interest” due to their relationship with opposing parties and/or their counsel/counsel’s law firm.(27) Whether judges/justices assigned cases involving Newsome and having relationships to opposing parties (i.e. such as opposing law firms as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, their employees and/or clients) had a duty to recuse themselves from lawsuits – i.e. such as Judge Tom S. Lee [see APPENDIX “11” – Recusal Orders executed because of relationship to Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz - provided and incorporated herein by reference] – in which knowledge of CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTED. Whether judges/justices are allowed to discriminate in their compliance with laws governing recusal [see APPENDIX “12” – Docket Sheet (Newsome v. Entergy - wherein Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz appears as counsel of record - provided and incorporated herein by reference]. Whether judges/justices should be IMMEDIATELY removed from the bench and/or the applicable legal actions initiated against judges/justices for removal when record evidence supports judges/justices failure to recuse. How does said failure of judges/judges to recuse themselves affect the public and/or Constitutional rights of citizen(s).(28) Whether Newsome, as a matter of Constitutional right, is entitled to JURY trial(s) when requested. Whether Newsome has been deprived of Constitutional right to jury trial(s).(29) Whether lower courts are required to protect “federal” rights of Newsome in the handling of lawsuit. Whether lower courts failed to protect Newsome’s federally protected rights. Page 41 of 118
  • (30) Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another state supreme court on the same important matter; has decided in important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; and/or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the United States Supreme Court’s supervisory power and/or original jurisdiction.(31) Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals.(32) Whether Supreme Court of Ohio has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court; and/or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court.(33) Whether the lower courts entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another state supreme court on the same important matter; has decided in important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; and/or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure, as to call for an exercise of the United States Supreme Court’s supervisory power and/or original jurisdiction.(34) Whether the lower courts have decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals.(35) Whether lower court decision(s) raise question(s) as to the validity of the federal statute or treaty; raise a question statute statute/law relied upon is repugnant to the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States; or address the contention that a right, privilege or immunity is “set up or claimed under the Constitution or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.”(36) Whether the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), have provide courts with a license and/or defense to engage in criminal acts – i.e. provide arbitrary/capricious decisions for purposes of covering up criminal/civil wrongs leveled against citizens/litigants – for purposes of protecting TOP/BIG/KEY Financial Campaign Contributors.(37) Whether Newsome has been deprived equal protection of the laws, equal privileges and immunities of the laws, and due process of laws secured under the United States Constitution.(38) Whether Newsome is a victim of “Pattern-of-Practices,” “Pattern-of-Abuse,” “Pattern-of-Injustices” and/or “PATTERN” of unlawful/illegal practices as a direct and proximate result of her engagement in protected activities. Page 42 of 118
  • (39) Whether Newsome is a victim of “Criminal Stalking.”(40) Whether Newsome is a victim of Government “BULLYING.” Whether the United States Government/Courts allow parties opposing Newsome in legal matters (judicial and administrative) to use their “political” and “financial wealth” for purposes of BULLYING Newsome. Whether said BULLYING is for purposes of intimidation, coercion, threats, bribery, blackmail, etc. to force Newsome to abandon protected rights and/or deprive Newsome equal protection of the laws, equal privileges and immunities of the laws and due process of laws.(41) Whether United States Government and Newsome’s former employer(s) have engaged in criminal/civil wrongs leveled against her for purposes of BLACKLISTING. Whether the United States Government/Courts have placed information on the INTERNET regarding Newsome that it knew and/or should have known was false, misleading and/or malicious.(42) Whether Government agencies, their employees and others have engaged in TERRORIST ACTS.(43) Whether the United States citizens/public and/or Foreign Nations, their leaders and citizens are entitled to know of the crimes and civil injustices of the United States Government, its officials/employees and co-conspirators leveled against African- Americans and/or people of color.(44) Whether extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant granting of Petition of Extraordinary Writ.(45) Whether conspiracy(s) leveled against Newsome exist. Whether United States Government’s/Court(s)’ failure and “neglect to prevent” has created a “threat to the public” in the allowing criminal(s) to remain at large in the general population.(46) Whether Newsome is being subjected to further criminal/civil violations by the United States Government and its subsidiaries (i.e. such as the Ohio Attorney General’s – Richard Cordray’s – Office) in RETALIATION for engagement in protected activities. Whether the United States Government and its subsidiaries are engaging in criminal acts of HARASSMENT, THREATS, COERCION, BLACKMAIL, INTIMIDATION, etc. in the providing of false/frivolous/sham legal process – i.e. such as 2005 Personal Income Tax claims wherein Newsome was NOT a resident of the State of Ohio in 2005 [see APPENDIX “10” – December 27, 2010 correspondence from Ohio Attorney General] – with knowledge that said actions are NOT applicable to Newsome and are PROHIBITED by law. Whether Government records reflect documentation to support/sustain timely, proper and adequate notification as to Newsome’s defenses to claims asserted.(47) Whether Newsome is required to pay the fees alleged in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas’ December 20, 2010, “CASE COST BILLING” [see APPENDIX “14” incorporated Page 43 of 118
  • herein by reference]. Whether Newsome’s submittal of “EM/ORS” stays proceeding in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Whether Newsome’s filing of “Opposition/Objection to November 8, 2010 Entry; Request for Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law; and Vacating of Entry” and filing of this instant “PFEW” with the United States Supreme Court stays and preserves the rights of Newsome – i.e. preclude the CRIMINAL/CIVIL violations of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.(48) Whether Government Agencies (i.e. its employees) have violated Newsome’s Constitutional rights and other rights secured under the laws of the United States. Whether the Government has engaged in criminal/civil violations in demanding monies from citizens to which it is NOT entitled. Whether it is lawful for Government agency(s) to demand monetary relief from citizen(s) under certain time restraints when it, itself owes citizens monies. Whether Government is required to compensate citizen(s) for monies owed when citizen(s) make timely demands – i.e. it has knowledge that citizen(s) are owed monies.(49) Whether citizens of the United States have the right to exercise First Amendment Rights and Rights secured/guaranteed under the United States Constitution and/or Rights secured under the laws of the United States without fear of reprisal.(50) Whether Courts and Judges/Justices have legal authority to interfere in matters where Newsome has requested the United States Congress’ and/or United States Legislature’s intervention. Whether said interference deprives Newsome equal protection of the laws, equal privileges and immunities of the laws and due process of laws – rights secured under the United States Constitution and/or laws of the United States.(51) Whether United States Government Agencies and their Officials/Employees have the right to retaliate against Newsome for exercising rights protected and secured under the laws of the United States and United States Constitution.(52) Whether opposing parties’, their insurance providers, special interest groups, lobbyists, and their representatives have legal authority to retaliate against Newsome for her engagement in protected activities. Whether opposing parties and their conspirators/co-conspirators are allowed to stalk Newsome from job-to-job/employer-to-employer and state-to-state for purposes of terminating her employment, blacklisting, etc. in retaliation for Newsome having exercised and/or or engaged in protected activities.(53) What role (if any) has the law firm Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees, clients and others have played in the criminal/civil wrongs and conspiracies leveled against Newsome?(54) What relationship (if any) does the law firm Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees and clients have Page 44 of 118
  • to United States President Barack Obama and his Administration?(55) What relationship (if any) does the law firm Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees and clients have to past Presidents of the United States and their Administration?(56) What relationship (if any) does the law firm Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees and clients have to officials/employees in the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives?(57) What relationship (if any) does the law firm Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees and clients have in the appointment of judges/justices to the courts?(58) What role (if any) did the law firm Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees and clients have in the handling of criminal/civil complaints Newsome filed with the United States Department of Justice – i.e. based on relationship and KEY position(s) held with the Commission on Civil Rights [Chairman, etc.] which serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws; submitting reports, findings and recommendations to the President and Congress; and issuing public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws . . . served as Chief Counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on the Constitution, which responsibilities included advising the Chairman and Republican Members of the Judiciary Committee on legislation and Congressional oversight implicating civil and constitutional rights, Congressional authority, separation of powers, proposed constitutional amendments and oversight of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [see for instance APPENDIX “13” – Baker Doneslon information regarding Bradley S. Clanton]?(59) What role (if any) did Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees, its clients and the United States Department of Justice play in the COVER-UP of criminal/civil violations leveled against Newsome reported on or about September 17, 2004 in “Petitioners Petition Seeking Intervention/Participation of the United States Department of Justice” - i.e. styled "VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME vs. ENTERGY SERVICES, INC." [see EXHIBIT “34” of “EM/ORS”] in which Newsome timely, properly and adequately reported the criminal/civil violations of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. and others – to no avail.(60) Whether the recent IMPEACHMENT of Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (i.e. having role as presiding judge in lawsuit involving Newsome) on or about December 8, 2010 [see APPENDIX “15” of PFEW – Article “Senate Removes Federal Judge in Impeachment Conviction” and EXHIBIT Page 45 of 118
  • “12” of “EM/ORS” incorporated herein by reference], is pertinent/relevant to this instant lawsuit. (61) What role (if any) did Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees, its clients, others and the United States Department of Justice play in the COVER-UP of criminal/civil violations leveled against Newsome reported on or about September 24, 2004 in “Request for Department of Justices Intervention/Participation in this Case” - i.e. referencing "Newsome v. Mitchell McNutt & Sams P.A." [see EXHIBIT “169” of “EM/ORS”] in which Newsome timely, properly and adequately reported the criminal/civil violations of Mitchell McNutt & Sams – to no avail. (62) Whether the INDICTMENT of Judge Bobby DeLaughter [i.e. having a role as presiding judge in lawsuit involving Newsome] on or about January 6, 2009, and his pleading GUILTY on or about July 30, 2009, is pertinent to this instant lawsuit. (63) Whether Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees and clients have an interest in the outcome of this lawsuit. If so, whether the United States Supreme Court is aware of said knowledge and/or information. (64) Whether lower court lawsuit in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas was filed as a direct and proximate result of Respondent Stor-All’s, its insurance provider’s and/or representatives’ knowledge of Newsome’s engagement in protected activities. (65) Whether attorneys and their client(s) are allowed to engage in criminal and civil wrongs for purposes of obstructing the administration of justice. (66) Whether the EXTRAORDINARY and EXCEPTIONAL circumstances surrounding this lawsuit supports the establishment of special court(s) to litigate matters. Whether the SPECIAL relationships of Judges/Justices to opposing party(s) in litigation involving Newsome warrant the creation of special court(s) to afford Newsome rights secured and guaranteed under the United States Constitution and laws of the United States – i.e. equal protection of the laws, equal privileges and immunities of the laws and due process of laws.this Court is to apply any/all other laws known to it to deter/prevent the criminal andcivil wrongs brought to its attention. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates has a duty to enforce any and all statutes/laws known to it governing saidmatters to deter/prevent as well as correct the injustices complained of and/or broughtto its attention. Page 46 of 118
  • 22. Newsome’s Petition for Extraordinary Writ providing the following as required by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States: I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEWError! Bookmark not defined. II. LIST OF PARTIES III. TABLE OF CONTENTS IV. INDEX TO APPENDICES V. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES VI. CONCISE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION VII. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, TREATIES, STATUTES, ORDINANCES and REGULATIONS INVOLVED IN CASE VIII. CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE IX. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION A. CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUEST B. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION PREREQUISITES: (i) Writ Will Be In Aid Of The Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction; (ii) Exceptional Circumstances Warrant the Exercise of the Court’s Discretionary Powers; (iii) Adequate Relief Cannot Be Obtained In Any Other Form or From Any Other Court; and (iv) for Other Reasons Known to this Court. X. CONCLUSION and RELIEF SOUGHT See EXHIBIT “N” Petition for Extraordinary Writ attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.23. Newsome believes it is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest for citizens to see just how the courts in the United States operate and COVER-UP the CORRUPTION of the United States Government/Government Officials, BIG corporations, BIG law firms, BIG insurance companies, SPECIAL INTEREST groups, their lobbyists, etc. who engage in criminal/civil wrongs leveled against citizens such as Newsome who OPPOSE such unlawful/illegal/unethical practices as that raised and addressed in EM/ORS, PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices. In fact, it is IMPORTANT for the PUBLIC/WORLD to see just how far the United States Government, WHITE employers, their lawyers, their insurance companies, etc. will go to POST FALSE, MALICIOUS and MISLEADING information known to be received through criminal acts on the INTERNET for purposes of destroying citizens’ (i.e. such as Newsome) lives. See EXHIBIT “O” – Google Information regarding Newsome attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Page 47 of 118
  • Furthermore, how the Government and WHITE employers engage in criminal/civilwrongs against citizens (i.e. such as Newsome) to see that the “DOORS OF THECOURTS” are closed to citizens who have VALID and MERITABLE claims. Eitherengaging and/or condoning the criminal acts of judges/justices who AID and ABETin the COVER-UP of CORRUPTION and CRIMINAL behavior. In Newsome case,the United States Government and White employers CONSPIRED to placeinformation on the INTERNET they knew to be FALSE, MALICIOUS andMISLEADING for purposes of having Newsome BLACKLISTED/BLACKBALLED and creating situation to see that Newsome is NEVER employablein EFFORTS of keeping the CRIMINAL/TERRORIST/ RACIST/SUPREMACISTpractices of WHITE employers OUT of the eyes/knowledge of CITIZENS and/orPUBLIC/WORLD. Weber v. Henderson, 275 F.Supp.2d 616 (2003) – Postal employee who filed fifteen lawsuits in nine years against United States Postal Service (USPS), stemming from his removal from full-service carrier duty, failed to raise claims in any action relating to events at issue that were neither meritless nor frivolous, and thus any further pro se pleadings submitted by employee on same basis would be PROPERLY reviewed under ALL WRITS ACT . . . In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993 (1989) Jessie McDonald may well have abused his right to file petitions in this Court without payment of the docketing fee; the Courts order documents that fact. I do not agree, however, that he poses such a threat to the orderly administration of justice that we should embark on the unprecedented and dangerous course the Court charts today. . . . I am most concerned, however, that if, as I fear, we continue on the course we chart today, we will end by closing our doors to a litigant with a meritorious claim. It is rare, but it does happen on occasion that we grant review and even decide in favor of a litigant who previously had presented multiple unsuccessful*188 petitions on the same issue. See, e.g., Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957); see id., at 173-177, 77 S.Ct. at 1136-1138 (Douglas, J., dissenting). "Petitioner is no stranger to us. Since 1971, he has made 73 separate filings with the Court, not including this petition, which is his eighth so far this Term. These include 4 appeals, 33 petitions for certiorari, 99 petitions for extraordinary writs, 7 applications for stay and other injunctive relief, and 10 petitions for rehearing." Id. pp. 994- 995. "But paupers filing pro se petitions are not subject to the financial considerations - filing fees and attorneys fees - that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions." Id. p. 996. The Supreme Court (even after all of McDonalds filings) did not close the door to McDonald. A litigant who is identified as filing 73 separate filings in a one-year period; however, ruled, "Petitioner remains free under the present order to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ, if he qualifies under the Courts Rule 46 and does not similarly abuse that privilege." Id. p. 996.Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude, that based upon the facts,evidenced and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW, and their supportingExhibits/Appendices, that the role the Respondents, United States Government, Page 48 of 118
  • courts, WHITE employers, etc. played in the posting of PROTECTED ACTIVITIES involving Newsome on the INTERNET – see EXHIBIT “O” – Internet information regarding PROTECTED ACTIVITIES involving Newsome which was posted for unlawful/illegal/unethical/malicious/willful intent attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.24. Newsome believes that the record will sustain that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions set forth in EM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that RELIEF under the “All Writs Act” will sustain that there “are persons/parties, though not parties to original action” - such as: (a) United States President Barack Obama and members of his Administration, lawyers, advisors, etc.; (b) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC (“Baker Donelson”) their client (LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY); (c) and others that may be identified through FACTUAL inquiries/INVESTIGATIONS that engaged in CONSPIRACIES and criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome – that RELY upon their DOMINENT/PROMINENT positions to INFLUENCE and FRUSTRATE the implementation of the laws, OBSTRUCT the administration of justice, and implementation of Orders issued by this Court. Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171 (1996) – Power conferred by All Writs Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to original action . . . are in position to frustrate implementation of court order or proper administration of justice. U.S. v. New York Tel. Co., 98 S.Ct. 364, 434 U.S. 159, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 – Power conferred by this section extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who though not parties to original action . . . are in position to frustrate implementation of court order or proper administration of justice and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice. U.S. v. International Broth. Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, 911 F.Supp. 743 (1996) – Important feature of All Writs Act is its grant of authority to enjoin and bind nonparties to action when needed to preserve court’s ability to reach or enforce its decision in case over which it has proper jurisdiction. Mongelli v. Mongelli, 849 F.Supp. 215 (1994) - Under All Writs Act, federal courts has authority to issue commands as necessary to effectuate orders it has previously issued and extends to persons who were not parties to original action but are in position to frustrate implementation of court order. Moreover, it is of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE for the CITIZENS/WORLD to see the Terrorist/Supremacist/Racist Regime that may be running the United States Government – Baker Donelson - and the positions it holds/held in the Government for purposes of exposing how ONE law firm has been ALLOWED to infiltrate the United States Government for PROMOTING its RACIST/DISCRIMINATORY/ SUPREMACIST ideas over their victims such as Newsome, other citizens and Foreign Countries/Leaders – http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield- patents : Page 49 of 118
  •  Chief of Staff to the President of the United States United States Secretary of State United States Senate Majority Leader Members of the United States Senate Members of the United States House of Representatives Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control for United States Department of Treasury Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Chief Counsel, Acting Director, and Acting Deputy Director of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services within the United States Department of Homeland Security Majority and Minority Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Member of United States President’s Domestic Policy Council Counselor to the Deputy Secretary for the United States Department of HHS Chief of Staff of the Supreme Court of the United States Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the United States Deputy under Secretary of International Trade for the United States Department of Commerce Ambassador to Japan Ambassador to Turkey Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman Governor of Tennessee Governor of Mississippi Deputy Governor and Chief of Staff for the Governor of Tennessee Commissioner of Finance & Administration (Chief Operating Officer) - State of Tennessee Special Counselor to the Governor of Virginia United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge United States District Court Judges United States Attorneys Presidents of State and Local Bar Associations Page 50 of 118
  • EMPHASIS ADDED in that this information is pertinent to establish - “though not parties to original action . . .are in position to frustrate implementation of court order or proper administration of justice” - the CONSPIRACY and PATTERN- OF-CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled against Newsome out of which this instant relief is sought. This information was originally located at: http://www.martindale.com/Baker-Donelson-Bearman- Caldwell/law-firm-307399.htm see attached at EXHIBIT “P” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. It is such information which had been posted for several years. See APPENDIX “Q” listing pulled approximately September 11, 2004. However, when Newsome went PUBLIC and released this information, Baker Donelson moved SWIFTLY for DAMAGE-CONTROL purposes and SCRUBBED this information from the Internet. It is a GOOD THING NEWSOME RETAINED HARD COPIES so that the PUBLIC/WORLD can see COVER-UP and COWARDLY tactics of one of the most Powerful Leaders (Barack Obama)/Countries (United States) attempting to HIDE/MASK their CRIMES/CIVIL WRONGS leveled against Newsome, members of her class and/or citizens of the United States. From research, Baker Donelson’s LISTING of GOVERNMENT positions held/controlled may also be found on its website. See EXHIBIT “R” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.25. Newsome further believes that given the facts, evidence and legal conclusions presented to this Court in her EM/ORS, PFEW, their supporting Exhibits/Appendices, MALICIOUS and CRIMINAL acts in placing PROTECTED information on the INTERNET, and what may be DILATORY practices of this Court in the handling of this matter thus far, that a reasonable mind may conclude that there may have been SUFFICIENT and ADEQUATE information provided this Court already to aid in its jurisdiction and handling of this matter; rather than rely upon what may be seen as dilatory tactics to AID and ABET Respondents (i.e. who based on established relationships have engaged in CONSPIRACIES and the COVER-UP of same) in the FURTHERANCE of their criminal/civil violations leveled against Newsome. As a matter of law the Supreme Court of the United States has a DUTY to correct the miscarriage of justices made known to it through any/all legal means known to it. Newsome need NOT be specific because this Court has VAST legal resources and KNOWLEDGE and/or the TOOLS TO OBTAIN SUCH KNOWLEDGE in how to handle the EXTRAORDINRY, EXCEPTION and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances brought to its attention by Newsome. Adams v. U.S. ex rel. McCann, 63 S.Ct. 236 (1942) - Unless appropriately confined by Congress, a federal court may avail itself of all auxiliary writs as aids in performance of its duties, when the use of such historic aids is calculated in its sound judgment to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it. Ex parte Milwaukee R. Co., 72 U.S. 188 (1866) - Where a case is properly in the Supreme Court . . ., the Supreme Court has a right under Judiciary Act § 14, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651, to issue any writ which may be necessary to render their . . . jurisdiction effectual. Page 51 of 118
  • Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84 S.Ct. 769 (1964) - Extraordinary writs are reserved for really extraordinary causes, and then only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). 26. HOW EXTRAORDINARY and/or EXCEPTIONAL is this ORIGINAL Lawsuit Newsome seeks to bring? EXTRAORDINARY/EXCEPTIONAL to go down in HISTORY for EXPOSING the MOST CORRUPT and MOST SCANDALOUS/HIDEOUS acts by the United States of America and attempts by ALL of its BRANCHES of Government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) to COVER UP Corruption/Conspiracies/Criminal acts of Government Officials, their Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson and their CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS. Furthermore, this instant Lawsuit will EXPOSE for instance:SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS (A) The TRUTH about the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center Attacks (“911 Attacks” and/or “911 DOMESTIC Terrorist Attacks”) and the fact, that said “DOMESTIC” Attacks were carried out by the United States of America’s EXECUTIVE (White House and Administration) and LEGISLATIVE (Congress) Branches, their LEGAL COUNSEL (Baker Donelson) and their CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS. Furthermore, the ROLE of the Supreme Court of the United States to OBSTRUCT this lawsuit for purposes of SHIELDING/HIDING this information from the PUBLIC/WORLD. Nevertheless, it appears that the News/Media is BEGINNING TO TAKE ISSUE with the United States of America’s CORRUPT and CRIMINAL HISTORY and CREATION of Al-Qeada by the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) – See FoxNews 19 REALITY CHECK With Ben Swann’s: http://youtu.be/YnigFUc0Agw and https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71 648e586476beac6b For instance: (i) The United States of America’s President and Congress allege that the 911 Attacks were carried out by Osama Bin Laden/Al- Qaeda. (ii) The 911 DOMESTIC Terrorist Attacks were carried out for purposes of providing the United States of America’s CORRUPT Government Officials, their Counsel Baker Donelson and other Conspirators/Co-Conspirators with a SHIELD/FRONT to HIDE/MASK their CRIMINAL acts and to gain access to Middle East Resources – i.e. oil, coal, jewels, Page 52 of 118
  • lands, monies, etc. From research, it appears that United States of America’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ACKNOWLEDGES the “DECEITFUL/DECEPTIVE” creation of Al-Qeada under former United States of America President Ronald Reagan – i.e. under which Baker Donelson’s Howard Baker (son of founder of Baker Donelson) served as President Reagan’s CHIEF OF STAFF as well as served in the CONGRESS as Senate MAJORITY/Minority Leader. Furthermore, Mr. Baker serving as AMBASSADOR to Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Sultanate of Oman. . . IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer so it is important to be aware that it appears Baker Donelson was in CONTROL of the White House and Congress.(iii) Baker Donelson had former United States of America George W. Bush and former Vice President Richard “Dick” Cheney placed in the White House. Baker Donelson providing for instance their employee David Addington to serve as CHIEF OF STAFF (see EXHIBIT “S” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein) to former Vice President Dick Cheney – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Halliburton (i.e. Fortune 500 Company and market leader in the energy/OIL sector with MIDDLE EAST interests). Dick Cheney served as SECRETARY of DEFENSE under former United States President George H. W. Bush. See EXHIBIT “T” – Cheney Information attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Page 53 of 118
  • (iv) The CLOSE Ties/Connections to the United States of America’s White House Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush to Osama Bin Laden’s family can be ESTABLISHED through their FINANCIAL Business interests with the Carlyle Group. See EXHIBIT “U” – Bushes and Bin Laden CONNECTIONS attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. This information is IMPORTANT so that the PUBLIC/WORLD can see how it appears that the White House/Congress CONSPIRED with relatives of Osama Bin Laden (i.e. which reports allege he was estranged) to FRAME Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda for the 911 DOMESTIC Terrorist Attacks. Furthermore, was meeting with member(s) of Osama Bin Laden’s family at the time of the 911 Attacks. Not only that, that Marvin Bush (son of former President George H.W. Bush and BROTHER of former President George W. Bush) at the time of the 911 Attacks served on the Board of Directors of Securacom which maintained SECURITY for the World Trade Center Towers up UNTIL September 11, 2001, as well as electronic security for Dulles International Airport out of which the planes used in the 911 Attacks departed. Marvin Bush served as DIRECTOR of HCC Insurance Holding which provided coverage for the World Trade Center Towers. See EXHIBIT “V” – Marvin Bush Information attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bush-marvin-pierce- wiki-info There are report(s) alleging FINANCIAL Investments of Osama Bin Laden’s family with Carlyle Group and ATTENDANCE at the Carlyle Group’s ANNUAL meeting by his brother Shafiq bin Laden during the 911 DOMESTIC Terrorist Attacks – i.e. a meeting at which former President George H.W. Bush was in attendance. Carlyle had been doing business with dozens of families and businesses throughout the Middle East since the early 1990s. And they had been extremely successful in the region. . . . the company had been running the Saudi Economic Offset Program for years, a government- funded programme designed to encourage foreign investment into Saudi Arabia, under the condition that a portion of the profits be reinvested in Saudi Arabia. In a sense, Carlyle had become the gatekeeper to foreign investing in Saudi Arabia. . . . In the weeks following the attacks, the name Osama bin Laden leaped on to the forefront of Americas consciousness as public enemy number one. Then, on Page 54 of 118
  • September 27, The Wall Street Journal ran a story entitled "bin Laden Family Is Tied to U.S. Group". That group, of course, was Carlyle. . . Carlyle told the press that the bin Laden’s were only in for $2 million, a relatively small amount of money considering the whole fund was worth $1.3 billion. But one bin Laden family financial representative says the number was much larger. . . See EXHIBIT “U.” CARLYLE GROUP – GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS/FINANCIAL INTERESTS ". . . operating out of 33 offices to uncover superior opportunities in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East andNorth America. . . While open to opportunities wherever they can be found, Carlyle focuses on sectors in which it has demonstrated expertise: aerospace,DEFENSE & GOVERNMENT services, consumer & retail, energy, FINANCIAL services, HEALTHCARE, industrial, REAL estate, technology& business services, TELECOMMUNICATIONS & MEDIA and TRANSPORTATION." http://www.carlyle.com/Company/item1676.html "In October 1997 Carlyle acquired UNITED DEFENSE INDUSTRIES," [i.e. which is now part of BAE Systems Land and Armaments.Company that produces COMBAT vehicles, ARTILLERY, NAVAL Guns, MISSILE Launchers and PRECISION MUNITIONS] "bringing in over60% of Carlyles DEFENSE business. United Defense went public on the NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE in December 2001" [i.e.approximately THREE (3) months AFTER the September 11, 2001 ATTACKS] with Carlyle RETAINING a Stock OWNERSHIP position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group "BAE Systems is a BRITISH multinational DEFENCE, SECURITY and aerospace company HEADQUARTERED in London, UnitedKingdom. . . is among the Worlds LARGEST MILITARY Contractors . . ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE CARLYLE GROUP PLAYED IN THE “BANK BAILOUTS” AND “AUTO INDUSTRY BAILOUTS” UNDERSTANDING WHY THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT GONE AFTER “CORPORATE EXECUTIVES/CORRUPTION” RESPONSIBLE FOR THE “ECONOMIC COLLAPSE”George H. W. Bush  Carlyle Group  United States of America President  United States Vice President (Ronald Reagan)  Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director  United States Ambassador to China  United States Ambassador to United Nations  United States Congressman – Texas Page 55 of 118
  • George W. Bush  United States of America President  United States Governor - State of Texas  Baker Botts - Law Firm (Mailroom)James A. Baker III  Carlyle Group - Senior Counsel  United States White House CHIEF OF STAFF (President George H. W. Bush)  United States SECRETARY OF STATE (President George H. W. Bush)  United States Secretary of the TREASURY (President Ronald Reagan)  United States White House CHIEF OF STAFF (President Ronald Reagan)  United States National Security Council  United States Commerce Department - Undersecretary of Commerce  Baker Botts - Law Firm – Represented Saudi Government in the 9/11 Attacks LawsuitArthur Levett  Carlyle Group – Senior Advisor  Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) – CHAIRMAN (President William “Bill” Clinton)  Member of the Board – American Stock Exchange  Member of the Board – BloombergDonald Marron  Carlyle Group – Advisory Board  SENIOR Economic Advisors (President George W. Bush)  UBS America – CHAIRMAN  Paine Webber – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO)  Member of the Board – Fannie Mae  Member of the Board – New York Stock Exchange  Member of the Board – Paine Webber  Member of the Board – Shinsei Bank Page 56 of 118
  • David M. Moffett  Carlyle Group – Senior Advisor  Freddie Mac – CEO  U.S. Bancorp – VICE CHAIRMAN/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (CFO)  Bank of America – SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT  Member of the Board – eBayCharles Ossola Rossotti  Carlyle Group – Senior Advisor  Internal Revenue Service – Commissioner  American Management Systems – CEO/President/Co-Founder  United States Department of Defense – DEPUTY Assistant to Secretary of Defense  Member of the Board – Bank of America  Member of the Board – Merrill Lynch  Member of the Board – Wall Street InstituteDouglas Alexander Warner III  Carlyle Group – Senior Advisor  JP Morgan Chase – CEO/President/Executive Vice President/Senior Vice President/Chairman of the Board  Morgan Guaranty Trust – Vice President/Assistant Vice President/Assistant Treasurer/Officer’s Assistant  JP Morgan Chase & Co. – Chairman of the Board Page 57 of 118
  • Edward J. Kelly III  Carlyle Group – Managing Director (Financial Institution Group)  PNC Financial – Vice CHAIRMAN  JP Morgan Chase – Managing Director (Global Financial)/General Counsel/Secretary  United States Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan – Law Clerk  Member of the Board – CIT Group  Member of the Board – Hartford Financial  Member of the Board – Mercantile Bankshares  Member of the Board – Petroleum & Resources Corp.John Major  Carlyle Group  United Kingdom Prime MinisterFred Malek  Carlyle Group  United States President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports  One of the FINANCIAL backers who purchased Texas Rangers and put George W. Bush in charge.Daniel F. Akerson  Carlyle Group – Managing Director  Chief Executive Officer (CEO) General Motors  Member of the Board – General Motors  CEO Nextel  CEO General Instrument  Member of Board – American Express  Member of Board – Time Warner Page 58 of 118
  • James H. Hance, Jr.  Carlyle Group - CHAIRMAN/Senior Advisor  Vice CHAIRMAN/CEO – Bank of America  Vice CHAIRMAN/CEO – Nations Bank  Member of Board – Bank of America  Member of Board – Duke Energy  Member of Board – Sprint/Sprint NextelRichard Gordon Darman  Partner and Senior Adviser Carlyle  United States Office of Management & Budget – Director (George H.W. Bush)  Lehman Brothers – Managing Director  United States Treasury Department – DEPUTY SecretaryWilliam E. Kennard  Carlyle Group – Managing Director  CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER FCC  Member of Board - Sprint Nextel (?)  Member of the Board - Nextel  Member of the Board – New York Times Co.Thomas F. “Mack” McLarty III  Carlyle Group – Senior Advisor  United States White House – CHIEF OF STAFF (President William “Bill” Clinton)  Member of the Board – EntergyFrank Charles Carlucci III  Carlyle Group – CHAIRMAN of the Board  United States Secretary of Defense (President Ronald Reagan)  United States White House National Security Advisor  CIA – DEPUTY DIRECTOR  United States Ambassador to Portugal  United States Health Education & Welfare Department – UNDER Secretary  United States Office of Management & Budget – DEPUTY DIRECTOR  United States Office of Economic Opportunity – DIRECTOR Page 59 of 118
  • Richard R. Burt  Carlyle Group - Advisor  United States Ambassador of Germany  United States Official – CHIEF Negotiator, Strategic Nuclear Arms (START)  United States Secretary of State for European Affairs  United States Secretary of State for Politico – Military Affairs  New York Times – National Security CorrespondentLouis V. Gerstner, Jr.  Carlyle Group – CHAIRMAN. Main investment committee and offers management advice  IBM Chairman and CEODavid L. Calhoun  Carlyle Group – CHAIRMAN and CEO  General Electric – Vice Chairman  VNU Group/Nielson Co.Norman Pearlstine  Carlyle Group – Senior Adviser  Time, Inc. – Editor-In-ChiefDavid Tung  Carlyle Group - Managing Director (Asia Pacific Region)  Merrill Lynch - Managing Director (Singapore)  Goldman, Sachs & Co. - Executive Director Page 60 of 118
  • (B) On or about July 13, 2010, Newsome submitted email to United States of America President Barack Obama and Government Officials/Employees entitled, “U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: THE DOWNFALL/DOOM OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION – Corruption/Conspiracy/Cover-Up/Criminal Acts Made Public.” See Exhibit “25” of EM/ORS and/or http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/07131 0-email-toobamaholder . IMPORTANT TO NOTE: In RETALIATION to this email, United States of America President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson (Lance Leggitt) http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lance- bresearchinfo http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lancesr- advisortopresidenthhscounselorgovofva and CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS – i.e. such as J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Revenue CONSPIRED against Newsome and UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY embezzled monies from Newsome’s Bank Account(s) WITHOUT a Court Order claiming CHILD SUPPORT: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071710-kydorjp- morganchasedocs. Doing so with KNOWLEDGE that Newsome has NO child(ren) and NEITHER birthed/adopted/aborted child(ren); furthermore, has NOT married.(C) On or about October 9, 2010, Newsome submitted for filing 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” (“EM/ORS”). See at: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/100910-emergency-motion(D) On or about October 10, 2010, Newsome created and released for PUBLIC/GLOBAL review her PowerPoint Presentation entitled: CLEAN OUT CONGRESS 2010 AMERICANS Take BACK Your Country/Government Come November 2010 Vote OUT The INCUMBENTS CAREER Politicians http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/10-2010-power-point-november- election Page 61 of 118
  • (E) On November 2, 2010, United States President Barack Obama took a SHELLACKING at the Polls – i.e. the Democrats LOSING control of the United States House of Representatives and NARROWLY escaping defeat in the United States Senate.(F) It appears that heeding Newsome’s July 13, 2010 WARNING about his INEVITABLE “Downfall/Doom” and the SHELLACKING at the November 2011 Elections, United States of America President Barack Obama, in accordance with his “SECRET KILL LIST” that is kept (See EXHIBIT “W” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein) http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama- secret-kill-list-13166139 may have moved to CLEAN House of those he and his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson may have considered “COLLATERAL DAMAGE!” For instance, it appears having the following INSIDERS “Taken Off The Field:” (i) About December 5, 2010: W. Lee Rawls – A Baker Donelson employee that they had put into the position as Chief of Staff/Senior Counsel to Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Director Robert Mueller (placed in this position on September 4, 2001, approximately SEVEN (7) days PRIOR to the 911 Attacks! W. Lee Rawls it appears was placed in this position SHORTLY AFTER the February 14, 2006 KIDNAPPING of Vogel Denise Newsome ORDERED by BAKER DONELSON: [See EXHIBIT “X” – Lee Rawls Information attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein] – i.e. at the time of the Newsome vs. Entergy matter, Lee Rawls was a PARTNER at Baker Donelson. Baker Donelson relying upon W. Lee Rawls, it appears, as being the GATEKEEPER and OBSTRUCTING ALL Investigations for any/all Complaints brought by Vogel Denise Newsome to the United States Department of Justice/FBI, etc. Baker Donelson having their employee W. Lee Rawls placed in this position and relied upon him to OBSTUCT the FILING and INVESTIGATIONS of the following FBI Complaints submitted by Newsome involving Baker Donelson and their CLIENT(s) – i.e. such as President Barack Obama, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Justices/Judges, etc. Page 62 of 118
  • June 26, 2006 – FBI COMPLAINT (MississippiKIDNAPPING Matter):http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/062606-fbicomplaint-mississippi-matter10/13/08 - FBI COMPLAINT (Kentucky GMM Matter):http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/101308-fbi-complaint-gmm-properties09/24/09 – FBI COMPLAINT (Ohio STOR-ALL Matter):http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/092409-fbicomplaint-storallDecember 28, 2009 FBI COMPLAINT AGAINST OHIOSUPREME COURT:http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/122809-fbicomplaint-ohio-supreme-court06/09/10 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONCOMPLAINT – PUBLIC STORAGE:http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/060910-fbi-complaint-public-storageBaker Donelson having former President George W. Bush placeRobert Mueller in the position of DIRECTOR of the FBIapproximately SEVEN (7) days BEFORE theSeptember 11, 2001 Attacks that theyCONSPIRED to carry out and FRAME OsamaBin Laden/Al-Qaeda for purposes of startingWARS in the Middle East based on the United States ofAmerica’s DOMESTIC Terrorist Attack on its OWNWorld Trade Center Buildings and then attempting toFRAME Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaida for their CRIMES!Then approximately EIGHT (8) DAYS later: Page 63 of 118
  • (ii) About December 13, 2010: Richard Holbrooke - SPECIAL Envoy to PAKISTAN and AFGHANISTAN . . . was in a meeting WITH Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A meeting which ultimately and or coincidentally ended on a DEATH note – i.e. it appears Richard Holbrooke being the victim. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/holbrookerichard -deathmeeting-with-hillary-clinton Then approximately EIGHTEEN (18) Days later:(iii) About December 31, 2010: John Wheeler III - U.S. MILITARY Expert who served THREE Republic Presidents was KILLED/MURDERED and his body was FOUND at a Waste Landfill. In other words, it appears that from the “KILL LIST” kept by President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson/Howard Baker/Lance Leggitt, Congress and those with whom they CONSPIRED may have thought of Wheeler as “TRASH” and “WORTHLESS” based on the method of killing and disposal of the body. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/wheeler-john-parsons-iiiThen approximately FOUR (4) Months later: Page 64 of 118
  • (iv) About May 1, 2011: The alleged KILLING/MURDER of Osama Bin LadenHOW STUPID FOR UNITED STATES PRESIDENT BARACKOBAMA, HIS LEGAL COUNSEL BAKER DONELSON BEARMANCALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, HIS ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS TOTHINK THE PUBLIC/WORLD WOULD BE –Question(s)/Issue(s) This Lawsuit WILL Address andare Matters of PUBLIC/GLOBAL Interests: Page 65 of 118
  •  40-MINUTES FIERY shootout down the street from Pakistan Government facilities as well as MILITARY forces and there is NO response from Pakistan Officials for OVER 40 minutes! For instance – Osama Bin Laden and his guards were ARMED and RESISTED by fighting back; then, reports says that he was UNARMED and did NOT resist! 40-MINUTES FIERY shootout and NONE of the neighbors called EMERGENCY Responders (i.e. the POLICE) and NO Pakistan MILITARY response! Page 66 of 118
  •  SEVERAL/MULTIPLE versions of the 40-MINUTES shootout were told by United States of America President Barack Obama – i.e. when they allege WATCHING the entire operation in the situation room. ALL Watching alleged 40-MINUTES shootout and claiming that Osama Bin Laden was ARMED! Later reporting that Osama Bin Laden was UNARMED! https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama-osama-binladenunarmedchangeslietold NO Live Footage – Footage of Shootout created on a COMPUTER/COMPUTER GENERATED. Because of questions, the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY allegedly requested access AFTER this SHOOTOUT to conduction their INVESTIGATION – i.e. basically LOOK at the to RECREATE and PRODUCE Live Footage AFTER the fact. HEAD GEAR – i.e. looks like a regular Military CAP and NO Night Vision Goggles! This was supposed to be a MILLION DOLLAR mansion; however, look how TIGHT/CLOSED IN these quarters are. Obviously photographs which may have been taken from OTHER NIGHT Raids the United States of America’s Military are KNOWN for; however, NOT from the alleged Osama Bin Laden Killing/Murder! Page 67 of 118
  •  NO Photographs have been released and NO persistence by the PUBLIC/WORLD to see these photographs UNDER the “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT!” Not even the United States President Barack Obama can keep these photographs from the PUBLIC/WORLD. The use of an alleged STEALTH Helicopter that NOBODY has ever seen FULLY OPERATIONAL was just CONVENIENTLY used in this operation and CONVENIENTLY DESTROYED so the TRUTH of its use and seeing it fly would not be challenged. Page 68 of 118
  •  40 -MINUTES FIERY shootout of Osma Bin Laden who had REPEATEDLY been reported as a “CAVE-DWELLER” – i.e. living in caves and/or mountain regions. Alleged QUICK Burial CONVENIENTLY at SEA – i.e. NOT land so that Osama Bin Laden killing/murder can be verified and NOT in accordance to Islamic CUSTOM! [See EXHIBIT “Y” – Articles Regarding Osama Bin Laden Burial At Sea attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.] According to reports, the “At-Sea Burial” would NOT have been used and would NOT apply to Osama Bin Laden! This method was used for purposes of “KILLING the LIES” the United States of America’s WHITE HOUSE and CONGRESS have been telling for years. Pakistan’s Government is being paid approximately $2 BILLION DOLLARS a year since the 911 DOMESTIC Terrorist Attacks for their ROLE in the 911 COVER-UP – According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Page 69 of 118
  • We also have a history of kinda moving in and out of Pakistan. I mean lets remember here the people we are fighting today, WE FUNDED 20 YEARS AGO and we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. http://youtu.be/6YxrsfhsMDc or https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71648d60616 ea970a0 . . . we had this brilliant idea that we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahideen, equip them with stinger missiles and everything else. . . we said, "GREAT, GOOD BYE!" LEAVING THESE TRAINED PEOPLE WHO WERE FANATICAL in Afghanistan and Pakistan leaving them WELL ARMED, CREATING A MESS FRANKLY that at the time we really didnt recognize. . . http://youtu.be/wGbqZHRv19Y or https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71648e58647 6beac6b The Central Intelligence Agency was allowed into PAKISTAN to INJECT its citizens with diseases – i.e. it appears for GENOCIDE purposes: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-us-inject-fake-vaccine2 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-us-inject-fake-vaccine Page 70 of 118
  • United States of America’s Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) used FAKE“VACCINE” scam to INJECT Pakistan Citizens with who knows “WhatDRUGS/POISONS were in the NEEDLES” in the United States’ efforts toKILL/MURDER off those who know the TRUTH about Osama Bin Laden andKNOWLEDGE that he was NOT killed/murdered on May 1, 2011 asalleged by United States of America President Barack Obama. How INHUMANEwere these practices? Yet nothing has been done because it appears the UnitedStates paid approximately $20 BILLION DOLLARS inBLACKMAIL/BRIBERY monies to the Pakistan Government for itsROLE in the COVER-UP of the “9/11” Attacks! Now it appears thatPresident Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson, United States Congress, the CIAand other Conspirators/Co-Conspirators are taking STEPS to WIPE OUT PakistanCitizens by INJECTING them with some MYSTERIOUS DRUG/DISEASE/VACCINE!  Alleged Killing/Murder coming approximately NINE (9) DAYS from the April 22, 2011, phone call and voicemail message left by United States Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s Office: https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.asp x?v=8a71648c5e666ea66d9d http://youtu.be/rRwXJ8RQRKg for Newsome regarding her January 30, 2011 email entitled, “INVESTIGATION of UNITED STATES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA - Senator Paul URGENT Assistance Is Being Requested.” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/013011- email-senator-randpaul IMPORTANT TO NOTE: That Baker Donelson’s TOP/KEY Client LIBERTY MUTUAL INSRUANCE COMPANY is a BIG FINANCIAL supporter of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/paul- randfinancial-contributions Page 71 of 118
  •  Alleged Killing/Murder coming approximately NINE (9) DAYS after the April 22, 2011, request by United States of America President Barack Obama and his attorney/counsel for his Certificate of Live Birth. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama- 042211-letter-fromjudithcorley Baker Donelson using “FRONTING” Washington Law Firm PERKINS COIE to AID and ABET in the furtherance of CONSPIRACIES, CORRUPTION and COVER-UP of criminal acts. Alleged Killing/Murder coming approximately SIX (6) DAYS after the April 25, 2011, ANNOUNCEMENT by United States of America Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour’s ANNOUNCEMENT that he will NOT be running for President of the United States. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenis e/barbour-haley-no- presidentialrunin2012 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenis e/barbour-haley-will-notrunin2012 Page 72 of 118
  • Governor Haley Barbour and President George W. Bush - Baker Donelson/C. Lee Lott III is Legal Counsel for former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd- cleelottiiigovbarbour Page 73 of 118
  • - Baker Donelson RECRUITED one of Governor Haley Barbour’s Administrative Staff Members Jon Lewis (CHAIRMAN of the Mississippi Athletic Commission) to carry out the February 14, 2006 KIDNAPPING of Newsome. Jon Lewis is a White Supremacist and member of Baker Donelson’s Conspiracies TARGETING African-Americans and/or People-Of-Color. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/05 2311-doj-conspiracy-to-kidnap- Baker Donelson also RECRUITED and RELIED upon one of their CORRUPT Judges William Skinner to ORCHESTRATE Newsome’s February 14, 2006 KIDNAPPING. Judge Skinner is the SON of the Jackson Mississippi Officer (Police Lieutenant William Louis Skinner) that the United States Department of Justice/FBI MURDERED/KILLED and FRAMED the Republic of New Africa for. The Republic of New Africa is a LEGACY of Muslim Civil Rights Leader Malcolm X. The United States Government resorting to CRIMINAL practices for purposes of DESTROYING this Organization – i.e. Taking the life of Jackson Police Officer William Skinner and FRAMING members of the Republic of New Africa. Judge Skinner is a White Supremacist and member of Baker Donelson’s and the FBI’s Conspiracies TARGETING African-Americans and/or People- Of-Color and was placed on the Judicial Bench Page 74 of 118
  • for purposes of fulfilling their RACIST agenda AGAINST African-Americans and/or People-Of- Color. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/j udge-william-skinner-2011-top-cop- award Alleged Killing/Murder coming approximately SIX (6) DAYS after the alleged April 25, 2011, prison break where there were supposedly over FIVE (5) Months to dig and CONVENIENTLY releasing approximately 500 “TALIBAN” political prisoners. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban- stages-mass-jail-break http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban- help-nearly-500-escape-from-afghan-prison Alleged Killing/Murder coming approximately SIX (6) DAYS after the April 25, 2011, letter from Loretta J. Fuddy – Director of Health for the State of Hawaii – allegedly providing United States of America President Page 75 of 118
  • Barack Obama with copies of his Certificate of Live Birth. See at Page 4: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama- 042211-letter-fromjudithcorley President Barack Obama and his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson having Loretta Fuddy placed in this position approximately 24 days PRIOR to their April 22, 2011 request. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama- 032911-fuddyconfirmed  Alleged Killing/Murder coming approximately FOUR (4) DAYS after the April 27, 2011, release of a FAKE/FALSE Certificate of Live Birth by United States of America President Barack Obama.http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/042711-certificate-oflivebirthdiscrepancies https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71648d5b5e727bb499 Page 76 of 118
  • IMPORTANT TO NOTE: “VOGEL” Denise Newsome was bornoverseas, has a GERMAN name and keeps a COPY of her Birth Certificate inher records – i.e. like MANY other Citizens who have a copy of their Birth Certificate in theirrecords. While Newsome VOTED for President Barack Obama, the FACTS are theFACTS:  Why DIDN’T United States of America President Barack Obama NOT simply provide a PHOTOCOPY of his Certificate of Live Birth ALREADY in his possession? One is supposed to believe that a United States of America President, former United States of America Senator and former United States ILLINOIS Senator did NOT have a HARD Copy of his Certificate of Live Birth ALREADY in his possession although he has a PASSPORT! In other words:  The PUBLIC is supposed to believe that 47 year old man (now 51) – i.e. a former United States Senator and Illinois Senator - did NOT ALREADY have a Birth Certificate/Certificate of Live Birth in his possession that he could have SIMPLY provided a photocopy of. That’s just how STUPID President Barack Hussein Obama II, Baker Donelson and those involved in CONSPIRACIES think Americans and WORLD LEADERS are.  What form(S) (i.e. if not Certificate of Live Birth) did President Barak Obama use to get his PASSPORT?  Why was it NECESSARY for President Barack Obama to provide a Certificate of Live Birth on a SIMULATED/FALSE/FAKE Background and not a PHOTOSTAT copy as that alleged to be of the Nordyke Twins born in Hawaii and at the SAME hospital about the time President Barack Obama claims to have been born? IMPORTANT TO NOTE: United States of America President Barack Obama’s Legal Counsel (Baker Donelson) YES, also put their people/employees in positions as Chief Counsel, Acting Director, and Acting Deputy Director of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services within the United States Department of Homeland Security. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield-patents http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/devine-robert-chowobamagotcolb http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/devine-robertbio-infocolb Page 77 of 118
  • http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/nordyke-twins-colb  President Barack Obama was placed into the White House under FALSE, FRAUD and DECEPTIVE purposes to get Foreign Nations to believe that the United States of America has CHANGED from its WHITE SUPREMACIST/RACIST practices – when it has NOT! IMPORTANT TO NOTE: NO “LIVE” FOOTAGE of the alleged Killing/Murder of Osama Bin Laden was ever released. United States of America President Barack Obama and his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson simply had “COMPUTERIZED” generated images released to the Page 78 of 118
  • MEDIA – i.e. which WHITE Racist/JEWISH Zionists Control.It is about time that that the INTERNATIONALCOMMUNITIES “UNITE” and COME TOGETHER TO PUTTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S HEAD OFSTATES/PRESIDENT and CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS onTRIAL! INFORMATION THAT THE MEDIA WITHHELD:  The branch of the United States of America Military used to carry out the alleged attack and murder/killing of Osama Bin Laden was the United States Navy – Seal 6 Unit. Baker Donelson’s employee Raymond Mabus serves as the Secretary of the Navy. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mabus-raymondemploy-ties Wikipedia information for Baker When our look at the Donelson, you will see how they DELIBERATELY withhold information about Raymond Mabus’ Page 79 of 118
  • SERVING as the SECRETARY of the UNITEDSTATES NAVY: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker- donelson-wikipedia-information- withraymondmabusinfo http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker- donelson-wikipedia-info-11566741Furthermore, Baker Donelson has used the United States of America’sMILITARY to carry out its WHITE SUPREMACIST/RACIST Agendawith the SUPPORT of CONGRESS and the White House/Presidents of theUnited States to engage in WAR CRIMES targeting whom theybelieve are less INFERIOR Nations and/or Nations ofColor! IT IS INTERESTING HOW NO FOREIGN ALLYNATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES QUESTIONEDand/or ASKED FOR EVIDENCE FROM THE UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA TO SUPPORT THEKILLING/MURDER OF OSAMA BIN LADEN! So THINKabout it – HOWmany Foreign Nations/Leaders KNOWthat it was the United States of America that carriedout the 9/11 Attacks on its OWN World TradeCenter Buildings and other targets and FRAMEDOsama Bin Laden and/or Al Qaida for theirCRIMINAL behavior for purposes of INCITING“FEAR” and “ANGER” in the MINDS of Whiteswho harbor and share their WHITESUPREMACIST/RACIST Agenda and Beliefs! HERE ARE TWO VIDEOS NEWSOME WAS ABLE TO FIND ON THE INTERNET WITH HILLARY CLINTON ACKNOWLEDGING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S ROLE Page 80 of 118
  • in the TAKE DOWN of the Soviet Union and the ROLE of the United States of America’s WHITE HOUSE and CONGRESS leaving their “STINGERS” all across the MIDDLE EAST and THREATS of SANCTIONS if the MIDDLE EAST OPPOSES their TERRORIST PRACTICES: http://youtu.be/wGbqZHRv19Y or https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx? v=8a71648e586476beac6bSEE FOR YOURSELF THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA’S STINGERS that they leave behind from their TERRORISTSacts and leaving for their VICTIMS to “DEAL WITH:” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/082112 -hillary-clinton-dealing-with-the-united-states- of-americas-stingers  Approximately 27 days later on May 28, 2011 (after the alleged “KILLING/MURDER” of Osama Bin Laden), in RETALIATION: President Barack Obama with his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson and their CLIENTS (i.e. this time including clients as U.S. Bank, etc.) AGAIN, CONSPIRED to EMBEZZLE monies from Newsome’s Bank Account(s). This time turning to U.S. Bank’s Richard K. Davis (WHITE SUPREMACIST/RACIST) to AID and ABET in their Criminal activities and steal/embezzle monies for “CHILD SUPPORT.” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/052811- usbankfaxconfirmation-finalredacted http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/053011-us- bankfaxdaviscarlsonfinalredact Page 81 of 118
  • U.S. Bank is also a TOP/KEY Client of Baker Donelson. Although Newsome requested that U.S. Bank provide her with the documents it relied upon to UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGAL seize her monies, U.S. Bank withheld this information from Newsome. Therefore, a reasonable person/mind may conclude that President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson and their CONSPIRATORS/CO- CONSPIRATORS provided a similar document as that provided to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071710-kydorjp- morganchasedocs On or about May 31, 2011, President Barack Obama and his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson in FURTHERANCE of their conspiracies, began the process of removing James C. Duff (employee of Baker Donelson) serving as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duffjameswiki pediaresignhighlighted-copy IMPORTANT TO NOTE: James C. Duff was placed in this position on or about April 2006 (i.e. approximately TWO (2) Months AFTER Newsome’s February 14, 2006, KIDNAPPING and other crimes carried out by Baker Donelson and their Clients against ): http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-james- cjudicialpositionsheldresignation http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker- donelson-justice-johnroberts-appoint- jamesduffhighlighted http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-james- memphis-dailynewshighlighted for purposes of being the GATEKEEPER in obstructing Lawsuits filed by Newsome as well as any /all Legal Lawsuits CHALLENGING United States of America President Barack Obama’s CITIZENSHIP! For instance the MISSION of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court: The mission of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) is to provide a variety of support functions to the United States federal judiciary. The AO prepares and submits the budget for the courts to the Judicial Conference for approval by Congress. It analyzes legislation Page 82 of 118
  • from Congress that will affect the courts operations or personnel, and it interprets and applies the new laws. It also provides administrative help to members of the courts in the form of clerks, probation and pretrial services officers, court reporters, and public defenders. To protect the integrity and process of the various United States Courts. [Cambell and Cambell, (1942 Ed. 15 G.R.A.H. §42.3] See EXHIBIT “Z” – Administrative Office of the United States Court information attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.Then approximately ONE (1) Month later: (v) About June 4, 2011: Lawrence Eagleburger Page 83 of 118
  • - Another employee who served as SENIOR “FOREIGN” Policy Advisor at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, it appears, was “TAKEN OFF THE FIELD” for purposes of keeping him silent about the PLANNING and CARRYING OUT of the 9/11 World Trade Center Buildings Attacks under former United States of America President William “Bill” Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton’s WATCH.- Lawrence Eagleburger was SECRETARY OF STATE under former United States of America President George H.W. Bush. UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS under former President Ronald Reagan. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/la wrence-eagleburger-wikipedia- information- Member of the BOARD of DIRECTORS of the Halliburton Company [i.e. company in which former Vice President Dick Cheney was CHAIRMAN and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER from approximately 1995 - 2000] TWO (2) Months later [THREEThen approximately(3) Months from the alleged killing/murder ofOsama Bin Laden: Page 84 of 118
  • (vi) About July 18, 2011, Newsome submitted correspondence to Justice John G. Roberts and Clerk of Court William K. Suter - “Response To May 18, 2011 Mailing RETURNED Containing Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Copy of May 3, 2011 Pleading," which also EXPOSED the "Conflict-Of-Interest" the United States Supreme Court FAILED to make KNOWN to Newsome; as well as Newsome DEMANDING that the United States Justices "STEP DOWN!" http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071811-ltr- sctjusticerobertssuter(vii) On or about July 23, 2011, Newsome via Email contacted United States President Barack Obama regarding, “UNITED STATES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA/ADMINISTRATION/LAWYERS – REQUEST TO STEP DOWN/RESIGN BY FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011 – REQUESTS TO PUT THE UNITED STATES ON TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES; INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST ACTS; OTHER CRIMINAL ACTS (i.e. To Be Tried Before An INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL As Well As SPECIAL COURTS TO BE CREATED IN UNITED STATES TO HANDLE THIS MATTER IF NECESSARY); and DENY FURTHER LOANS TO THE UNITED STATES – i.e. IN THAT MONIES MAY BE USED FOR TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES/NATIONS” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/072311- email-toobama-merged-with-attachment(viii) On or about AUGUST 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States contacted Newsome advising: Returned is check Number 1213, dated January 6, 2011, in the amount of $300.00. If you still intend to correct the petition as noted in my letter dated APRIL 27, 2011, you must submit a fresh check. Page 85 of 118
  • See EXHIBIT “AA” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.(ix) About AUGUST 2011, the WORLD just how HUGE the United States learns about of America’s Debt is. The United States of America suffers its FIRST DOWNGRADE – i.e. FALLING from its NUMBER ONE position. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/debt- usa3norwayindiafrance(x) About August 6, 2011: United States of America NAVY SEAL Members of the Seal 6 Unit allegedly used to carry out the May 1, 2011 raid on Osama Bin Laden, appears to have been placed on United States of America President Barack Obama’s and his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson’s “KILL List” for purposes of SILENCING them. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy- seal-helicopter-down-080611 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy- seal-helicopter-shot-down-080611 Report of President Barack Obama’s “KILL LIST” - See EXHIBIT “W” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Page 86 of 118
  •  About August 10, 2011 (approximately FOUR (4) DAYS later) – i.e. in efforts of CLEANING UP LOOSE ENDS, United States of America Military alleges the “Killing/Murder” of the INSURGENTS behind the August 6, 2011 attacks on Navy Seals’ Helicopter. What took OVER TEN (10) years to get Osama Bin Laden ONLY took FOUR (4) Days to get the alleged Insurgents behind the August 6, 2011 attack on Navy Seals. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban- insurgents-killednavy-seals-matter http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban- insurgents-killed-navy-seal Page 87 of 118
  • Clearly efforts by President Barack Obama, the United States of AmericaCONGRESS and their Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson to COVER-UPthe United States of America’s LIES about the May 1, 2011 attacks and“Killing/Murder” of Osama Bin Laden. According to News Reports, theUnited States of America has PAID Taliban approximately MILLIONS ofDollars to carry out such terrorist attacks. Clearly HUSH. . .HUSH. . .HUSH. ..MONEY! For instance: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliba n-us-paysterrorist2 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliba n-paid-360-million-us-tax-dollars  It appears under former United States of America President William “Bill” Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton (i.e. NOW serving as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama), he and his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson PLANNED the 9/11 Attacks. Providing former United States of America President William “Bill” Clinton with an APHRODISIAC (Monica Lewinsky) for sexual entertainment to keep him occupied as it and others CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS planned 9/11 attacks under his watch! Page 88 of 118
  •  It appears recruiting CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS as Linda Daschle – i.e. providing ACCESS to Homeland Security Information and ACCESS to the Airlines/Airplanes USED in the “911 DOMESTIC Terrorist Attacks:” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker- donelson-homeland-security-11566936 http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/devine- robert-chowobamagotcolb http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/daschle-linda- articles-highlighted-copy http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/daschle- lindarole-in911 and her husband United States South Dakota Senator Thomas Daschle – i.e. who at the time of PLANNING of the 9/11 Attacks served as United States SENATE MAJORITY LEADER. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Baker Donelson wanted United States President Barack Obama to appoint Linda Daschle’s husband (Thomas Daschle) as Secretary of Health and Human Services for purposes of getting the “Health Care Bill/OBAMACARE Bill” passed – i.e. the PUBLIC/WORLD know about the CRIMINAL ACTS engaged in to get the Bill passed. Page 89 of 118
  • ObamaCare/Health Care Bill which is NULL/VOID and is NOT enforceable! http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/daschle-thomas- wikipedia-info-highlighted It appears using Linda Daschle’s position to GAIN and OBTAIN access to the Airlines (i.e. such as American Airlines, its FLIGHT Records, etc.) used in the 9/11 Attacks. Baker Donelson bringing on what they consider “BIG FISH” such as Joan M. McEntee with “INSIDER EXPERIENCE” in KEY/TOP United States Government positions: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mc-entee- joanemployinfo http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mc-entee- joanmbdgovtties Then it appears under former United States of America President George W. Bush, his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson and other Clients (Members of the United States of America’s CONGRESS, etc.) they moved forward on September 11, 2001, to carry out the attacks on the World Trade Center and other targets that day.  It appears relying on former President George W. Bush’s brother’s (Marvin Bush). Marvin Bush was on the Board of DIRECTORS of SECURACOM (i.e. company which maintained SECURITY for the World Trade Center Towers up until September 11, 2001 [9/11 Attacks]). Securacom also provided electronic security for Washington Dulles International Airport (i.e. airport alleged to be the one planes used in 9/11 attacks departed from), United Airlines, Hewlett- Packard, EDS, Gillette, etc. Marvin Bush also served as DIRECTOR for HCC Insurance Holdings which provided Page 90 of 118
  • insured the World Trade Center. See EXHIBIT “V” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.  It appears from research that Marvin Bush’s BABYSITTER (Bertha Champagne) may have been “KILLED/MURDERED” – i.e. however, a COVER-UP in reporting that she was “CRUSHED TO DEATH by her vehicle” in the driveway of Marvin Bush. Well one may conclude that they did NOT want Bertha Champagne to TALK! So what did Ms. Champagne KNOW and HEAR! SUSPICIOUS DEATH/MURDER of Bertha Champagne – BABYSITTER for Marvin Bush (i.e. brother of George W. Bush): http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/champagne-bertha- fwp-article INFORMATION on Marvin P. Bush: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bush-marvin-pierce- wiki-info(xi) On or about AUGUST 31, 2011, Newsome submits correspondence entitled, “UNITED STATES KENTUCKY SENATOR RAND PAUL: Request Of Status Of INVESTIGATION(S) Request Regarding United States President Barack Obama and Government Agencies/Officials; Assistance In Getting Petition For Extraordinary Writ Filed; and Assistance In Receipt of Relief PRESENTLY/IMMEDIATELY Due Newsome - THURSDAY, WRITTEN Response Requested By SEPTEMBER 15, 2011.” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/08311 1-ltr-senatorrandpaulcorrected- versionwithmailingreceipts(xii) RETALIATION LAUNCHED BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S ADMINISTRATION, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT & UNITED STATES KENTUCKY SENATOR RAND PAUL’S ADMINISTRATION: It appears that it is about this time when Newsome’s Contract Employer (The Firm Garretson Page 91 of 118
  • Resolution Group, Inc.) relied upon its WHITE RACIST employees to launch attacks (i.e. working with the President Obama’s Administration) to compromise Vogel Denise Newsome’s work efforts and DESTROY client documents and FRAME Newsome for these WHITE RACISTS’ criminal acts for purposes of getting her terminated. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: The Garretson Firm Resolution Group is the firm CONTRACTED to handle the PAYOUTS to the 911 Victims/Responders. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-xix- garretson-q-and-a-the-911-adjuster(xiii) On or about SEPTEMBER 14, 2011,Obama Launch ATTACK Website Campaign to report websites such as www.vogeldenisenewsome.com - Which they had DISABLED in RETALIATION on or about February 3, 2012 AFTER receipt of January 27, 2012 and February 1, 2012 Emails entitled: “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” The LAUNCHING of President Barack Obama’s “ATTACK Website” coming approximately ONE (1) day BEFORE the September 15, 2011 deadline to receive a “WRITTEN Response” of the “Request of Status Of INVESTIGATION(S) regarding United States President Barack Obama.”(xiv) On SEPTEMBER 15, 2011, the SAME day that Vogel Denise Newsome requested a “WRITTEN Response” of the “Request of Status Of INVESTIGATION(S) regarding United States President Barack Obama,” James C. Duff – BAKER DONELSON employee – DIRECTOR of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts RESIGNS. Duff leaving this Page 92 of 118
  • FREEDOM Forum – post to go and work at the i.e. a MEDIA-affiliated organization. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff- jameswikipediaresignhighlighted-copy http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff- james-cduff- announceresignationfromuscourts http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/freedo m-forum-wikipedia James C. Duff was appointed to the position of DIRECTOR of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts by United States Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Baker Donelson had former President George W. Bush NOMINATE Justice John Roberts and the Senate CONFIRM him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Baker Donelson is Legal Counsel for United States of America Presidents and United States of America Congressional Members.(xv) On SEPTEMBER 15, 2011, the SAME day that Vogel Denise Newsome requested a “WRITTEN Response” of the “Request of Status Of INVESTIGATION(S) regarding United States President Barack Obama,” President Barack Obama ANNOUNCES that he is coming to Cincinnati, Ohio on September 22, 2011 – i.e. masking visit behind a Spence Bridge issue. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama- cincinnati-kentucky-bridge-091511-white- houserelease(xvi) On or about SEPTEMBER 22, 2011, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to the United States to speak to the United Nations. "Ahmadinejads verbal assault on the west and Israel promoted walkouts by diplomatic delegations. US diplomats were the first to leave, when Ahmadinejad referred to the mysterious September 11 incident as a PRETEXT to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. . . . Page 93 of 118
  • Later, he accused the US and its ALLIES of targeting Iran . . . they THREATEN ANYONE who QUESTIONS the Holocaust and the September 11 event with SANCTIONS and MILITARY actions, . . . The Iranian leader said this made the US and its ALLIES UNFIT to DOMINATE the international system, and called for CHANGE to the STRUCTURE of the UN Security Council." http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/iran -mahmoud-ahmadinejad-un-walkout IMPORTANT TO NOTE: The United States of America’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ACKNOWLEDGES how the United States imposes SANCTIONS as one of its methods of enforcing the “STINGERS” left across the Middle Eastern Nations and those who CHALLENGE them: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/082112- hillary-clinton-dealing-with-the-united-states-of- americas-stingers http://youtu.be/6YxrsfhsMDc or https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v= 8a71648d60616ea970a0(xvii) On October 5, 2011, United States Attorney General Eric Holder follows up with a visit – i.e. appears to be FRONT for TRUTH behind reasons for coming (to launch further ATTACKS on Vogel Denise Newsome for EXPOSING the United States Presidents and United States Congress, United States Courts, etc. ROLES in the COVER- UP of Government CORRUPTION! http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/holder -eric-cincinnati-visit-100511(xviii) On or about October 11, 2011, in RETALIATION to Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads speech it appears that approximately nineteen (19) days later (about OCTOBER 11, 2011) the Page 94 of 118
  • United States LAUNCHED a VICIOUS and MALICIOUS attack AGAINST Iran alleging that Iran had engaged in a TERRORIST PLOT to have Saudi Ambassador Adel al- Jubeir ASSASSINATED on United States Soil (i.e. in Washington, D.C. while at a restaurant). http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/iran-plot- assassinate-saudi-ambassador-ny-times-article IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE: The United States of America’s FINANCIAL TIES/RELATIONSHIPS to Osama Bin Laden’s family and the SAUDI ARABIA Government! Furthermore, Baker Donelson’s HISTORY in providing its employee Howard Baker (son of FOUNDER of Baker Donelson) as AMBASSADOR to Saudi Arabia. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker- howardbio http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd- howard-baker-wiki-info(xix) On October 12, 2011, Out of concerns of CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs being leveled against Vogel Denise Newsome, she submitted Memorandum requesting a “Meeting With Sandy Sullivan/HR” to discuss concerns of employee violations (criminal/civil). Sandy Sullivan took the Memorandum and advised that she would look into it and get back with me. - - i.e WHISTLE BLOWING PROTECTION: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/1012 11-garretson-resolution-group- memoredacted(xx) On October 20, 2011, Sandy Sullivan of The Garretson Firm Resolution Group responded to Vogel Denise Newsome’s 10/12/11 Complaint advising her that Garretson would be looking into her claims and she will be getting back with Newsome on Garretson Resolution Group’s findings. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/1020 11-emailsandy-sullivanredacted-copy Page 95 of 118
  • (xxi) On October 21, 2011, rather than provide Newsome with a response as advised, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group TERMINATED Newsome’s employment in AGREEMENT with CONSPIRACY reached with United States of America President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson, United States Congress (Senator Rand Paul) and other CONSPIRATORS/CO- CONSPIRATORS.(xxii) On October 21, 2011, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group (“GRG”) ABRUPTLY and UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY terminate Newsome’s employment – i.e. although advising Newsome as early as May 11, 2011, Sandy Sullivan/GRG had advised Newsome that her contract was being extended through December 2011; http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/05111 1-email-garretson-extending-contract moreover, on October 21, 2011, had Messina Staffing’s Justin Roehm advise Newsome that GRG would honor contract employment through December 2011. Messina Staffing’s Justin Roehm left a VOICEMAIL advising Newsome of her unlawful/illegal TERMINATION: http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v= 8a7065875e6775a76e9e Page 96 of 118
  • United States of America President Barack Obama and his Legal Counsel BakerDonelson relying upon Jim Messina (President Obama’s Campaign Manager/DeputyChief of Staff/Director of Personnel for the Transition Team for United StatesPresident Barack Obama) and his TIES/CONNECTIONS to MessinaStaffing/Messina Management Systems to RETALIATE and haveNewsome’s employment TERMINATED! (xxiii) On October 21, 2011, upon learning that Newsome’s employment with Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems and The Garretson Firm Resolution Group was being TERMINATED, President Barack Obama came out and ANNOUNCED that the Troops are “COMING HOME” from IRAQ – ENDING the War in Iraq! http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/oba ma-iraq-war-over-bringing-troopshome- 102111-article Page 97 of 118
  • the VERY NEXT(xxiv) On OCTOBER 22, 2011, DAY after Newsome’s TERMINATION – came the COINCIDENTAL passing/death of Saudi Arabia Prince Sultan bin Abdel Aziz in NEW YORK (i.e. the United States - on United States soil). Death coming approximately 30 days AFTER Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads speech to the United Nations ("UN") and approximately eleven (11) days AFTER the BOGUS/MALICIOUS LIE told by the United States of Irans PLOT to assassinate the Saudi Arabia Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/saud i-crown-prince-dies-102211-article(xxv) In November 2011, Baker Donelson ANNOUNCES its opening Offices in Florida. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker- donelson-expands-intoflorida http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker- donelson-expands-intoflorida2(xxvi) Also in NOVEMBER 2011, upon learning about the tragic loss of Florida A&M University Band Member Robert Champion, United States of America President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson and their CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS relied upon their MEDIA Contacts: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obam a-us-mediaprotectionofhim to LAUNCH ATTACKS against Florida A&M University – i.e. FLOODING the media airways with EXCESSIVE media coverage on the Robert Champion matter while it FAILED to give EQUAL coverage to WHITE Universities that may have suffered from similar alleged claims. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/hazing- deaths-at-universities Page 98 of 118
  • IMPORTANT TO NOTE: United States of America President Barack Obama doing so with KNOWLEDGE that Newsome is an Alumnus of Florida A&M University and in RETALIATION and CONSPIRACIES to use their TIES/CONNECTIONS to the United States Department of Justice/FBI/CIA, Florida Governor Rick Scott and other CONSPIRATORS/CO- CONSPIRATORS to implement their RACIST/SUPREMACIST practices and DESTROY Florida A&M University.(xxvii) On January 10, 2012, Newsome LEGALLY and OFFICIALLY served United States of America President Barack Obama with a “PINK SLIP” notifying him of his TERMINATION and the grounds for said Termination: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/01101 2-pink-slip-president-barack-obamasigned United States Postal Service (“USPS”) PROOF OF MAILING/RECEIPTS: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/01101 2-usps-mailing-receipts-obamapaulmullen With the PINK Slip served, Newsome also provided United States of America President Barack Obama, United States Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and United States Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen with pleading entitled, “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/011012- obama-eviction-notice-finalsigned IMPORANT TO NOTE: United States of America President Barack Obama and his Administration/Legal Counsel Baker Donelson attempted to COVER-UP his being served with PINK SLIP by DESTROYING the Certified Mail Return Receipt GREEN CARD. However, Page 99 of 118
  • AFTER Newsome’s going PUBLIC/GLOBAL, President Barack Obama had the CERTIFIED MAIL Green Card TAPED back TOGETHER and returned to Newsome. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/01101 2-usps-mailing-receipts-green-cardreturned(xxviii) On about February 2, 2012, United States of America President Barack Obama and his Legal Counsel/Advisor worked with Newsome’s former employer (The Garretson Firm Resolution Group) to contact her INTERNET Website provider OneWebHosting.com to have her Website TERMINATED in ACCORDANCE with President Barack Obama’s “ATTACK WEBSITE” Campaign AGAINST websites that share with the PUBLIC/WORLD his and his Conspirators CRIMINAL activities. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Newsome provided a RESPONSE to The Garretson Firm Resolution Group’s Complaint to OneWebHosting.com. GRG is being used as a FRONTING Firm by United States of America President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson and their Conspirators/Co-Conspirators to RETALIATE and LAUNCH attacks against Newsome to keep the PUBLIC/WORLD from learning the TRUTH behind the 911 DOMESTIC Terrorist Attacks and President Barack Obama’s BIRTH CERTIFICATE! http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/02021 2-webhosting- responsetogarretsonresolutioncomplaint RETALIATION AGAINST Vogel Denise Newsome’s EXERCISE of FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS and other Rights under the United States Constitution and/or Laws of the United States, United States President Barack Obama, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc., Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and those with whom they have CONSPIRED, it appears, are subjecting Vogel Denise Newsome to “INTERNET STALKING” and/or “CYER STALKING” which are Crimes PROHIBITED by law – i.e. it appears making THREATS, etc. to those who provide Newsome with INTERNET Services. Page 100 of 118
  • United States Senator Mike Crapo’s Press Release On: CYBER BULLYING: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/crapo- mike-cyber-bullying United States Senator Sherrod Brown’s Press Release On: INTERNET STALKING: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/brown- sherrod-internet-stalking(xxix) On February 3, 2012 – ONE week from the February 10, 2012 DEADLINE issued by Newsome for President Obama to STEP DOWN, United States of America President Barack Obama and his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson had their CONSPIRATOR/CO-CONSPIRATOR The Garretson Firm Resolution Group bring a FRIVOLOUS lawsuit against Newsome for purposes of UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY getting their hands on Newsome’s documents. This lawsuit was a FRIVOLOUS Copyright lawsuit to obtain documents in which Newsome created/drafted and in legal/lawful possession of. Furthermore, a FRIVOLOUS lawsuit to keep Newsome from releasing information in SOCIAL/PUBLIC forums for the PUBLIC/WORLD to see and/or receive. Page 101 of 118
  • (xxx) On February 6, 2012, United States of America President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group and their Conspirators/Co-Conspirators had Newsome’s account with SCRIBD.com TERMINATED in RETALIATION of Newsome’s exercise of FIRST AMENDMENT Rights and other protected rights. Furthermore, President Barack Obama had Scribd.com after their CRIMINAL acts, provide him with a FULL-PAGE ADVERTISEMENT:(xxxi) On February 9, 2012, Newsome filed the following pleadings in REBUTTAL to the lawsuit United States of America President Barack Obama and Baker Donelson had The Garretson Firm Resolution Group file AGAINST Newsome: “MOTION TO VACATE ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and/or in the ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO DISMISS” http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/0209 12-garretson-resolution-group-motion-to- vacate-stamped Page 102 of 118
  • and “NOTICE OF NON-ATTENDANCE AT FEBRUARY15, 2012 HEARING”http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/020912-notice-ofnonattendancehearinggarretsonstampedIMPORTANT TO NOTE: That AFTERNewsome’s filings in this lawsuit, the keep thePUBLIC/WORLD in the DARK and UNAWARE of what isgoing on and United States of America’s President BarackObama’s, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson’s, United StatesCongress’ and their Conspirators/Co-Conspirators’ interest,they had their FRONTING firm The Garretson FirmResolution Group have the Court “SEAL” this Lawsuit. Page 103 of 118
  • UNDERSTANDING HOW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHITE HOUSE/CONGRESS HAVE LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST CITIZENS TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO DOCMENTS ANDCOVER UP THE 911 DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACKS I. UNDERSTANDING HOW IT APPEARS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS LEGAL COUNSEL BAKER DONELSON MAY HAVE HAD DEBORAH PALFREY PLACED ON “KILL LIST” AND MURDERED: 27. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: That United States Of America President Barack Obama, Congress and their WHITE SUPREMACIST/RACIST/TERRORIST Legal Counsel Baker Donelson and other CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS HEAVILY rely upon their “STACKED” JUDICIAL SYSTEM as well as the United States Department of Justice and Administrative Office of the United States to CONTROL judicial proceedings. To get a better picture of how they operate and use their TIES/CONNECTIONS to obtain documents and evidence – i.e. then perhaps placing victims on their “KILL LIST,” Newsome will provide a SYNOPSIS regarding Debra Palfrey – also known as the Washington Page 104 of 118
  • D.C. Madame: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/palfrey-debra-jeane- 11708802 Palfrey was given the nickname "DC Madame" because of an alleged "HIGH-CLASS" Prostitution ring ran by her which catered to TOP/KEY Officials involved in the 9/11 Attacks. In January 2007, Brandy Britton, an employee of Palfrey, was alleged to have COMMITTED suicide by hanging a day PRIOR to going to court for "Prostitution." There were concerns that there were those who FEARED what Britton knew that could be VERY DAMAGING. Then days BEFORE Deborah Palfrey was to go to court, she too COMMITTED suicide by hanging – i.e. AFTER stating PUBLICLY and during an INTERVIEW that she would NOT commit suicide. It appears Palfrey was KILLED/MURDERED on or about May 1, 2008. What is also INTERESTING about these KILLINGS/MURDERS, one may wonder who represented these women? What happened to the EVIDENCE Deborah Palfrey claimed to have that would EXONERATE/CLEAR her of Charges? http://prisonplanet.com/audio/010508palfrey.mp3 It appears that former United States of America President George W. Bush and Congress used the United States Department of Justice to bring a MALICIOUS/FRIVOLOUS Criminal Lawsuit against Palfrey for purposes of getting their hands on her records and evidence linking them to the 9/11 Attacks. It appears from information, because of the attacks on Palfrey she may have been financially unable to obtain “PRIVATE” Legal Representation; therefore, she relied upon the use of a PUBLIC DEFENDER! [EMPHASIS Added]. Page 105 of 118
  •  The PUBLIC Defender’s Office is headed by the Administrative Office of the United States Court. The DIRECTOR of the Administrative Office of the United States Court being James C. Duff – EMPLOYEE of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. About July 2006, Baker Donelson had Supreme Court of the United States’ Chief Justice John Roberts appoint their employee James C. Duff to the position of DIRECTOR of the Administrative Office of the United States Court. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker- donelson-justice-johnroberts-appoint- jamesduffhighlighted http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-james- memphis-dailynewshighlighted It appears from the Docket that Deborah Palfrey was FIRST represented by A.J. Kramer/Office of the FEDERAL Public Defender i.e for approximately 2 ½ MONTHS before a WITHDRAWAL” Motion was filed. FUNDING and APPROVAL of appointment of attorneys for the Office of Federal Public Defender is handled by the DIRECTOR of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (i.e in PALFREYs case, the DIRECTOR at the time appears to have been JAMES C. DUFF - an employee of BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ). Therefore, it appears providing the United States of America with MEANS, MOTIVE and ACCESS to information/evidence that Deborah Palfrey possessed – i.e. moreover, the opportunity to destroy information/evidence and get rid of Palfrey if such information/evidence could lead back and EXPOSE Baker Donelson, its Clients and the United States Government’s role in the DOMESTIC TERRORIST acts on 9/11. Such as, it is alleged there are reports that Palfreys professional services included: (a) 9/11 Operatives that were among Palfreys CLIENTS; (b) the Sherlington Limousine company was used to take Palfreys Call Girls to clients and events attended by CIA Director and Director of National Intelligence (Porter Goss); and (c) "In AUGUST 2001 Goss, Senator Page 106 of 118
  • Bob Graham and Senator Jon Kyl visited ISLAMABAD, Pakistan. Meetings were held with President Pervez Musharraf and Pakistans military and intelligence officials including the HEAD of Pakistans Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmud Ahmed, as well as with the Afghan Ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Goss and Senator Bob Graham were having breakfast with General Ahmad. Ahmads network had ties to Osama Bin Laden and DIRECTLY funded, supported, and trained the Taliban. They met with Musharraf and Zaeef on the 27th. As reported by Agence France Presse on August 28, 2001, Zaeef assured the United States delegation that the Taliban would never allow Bin Laden to USE Afghanistan to launch attacks on the United States or any other country. . . With the White House and Senator Graham, his counterpart in the Senate Intelligence Committee, Goss rebuffed calls for an inquiry in the weeks immediately following September 11. After growing pressure, Congress established the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities BEFORE and AFTER the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, a joint inquiry of the two intelligence committees, LED BY Graham and Goss. Goss and Graham made it clear that their goal was NOT to identify specific wrongdoing: Graham said the inquiry would NOT play the blame game about what went wrong from an intelligence perspective, and Goss said, This is NOT a who- shall-we-hang type of investigation. It is about where are the gaps in Americas defense and what do we do about it type of investigation." DEBRA PALFREY: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/palfrey- debra-jeane-11708802 PORTER JOHNSTON GOSS: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/porter- johnston-goss-wikipedia-info It appears that ABC News had an Interest in the PALFREY matter that Palfrey filed, "OPPOSITION to ABC News Motion to Quash and Request for Oral Argument" on or about December 29, 2007. Recalling that ABCs Helicopter Pilot (Paul Smith) appears to have been KILLED/MURDERED just TWO (2) Months PRIOR. From News Articles, it appears Paul Smith may have been placed on former President George W. Bush and ABC’s “KILL LIST” because of his KNOWLEDGE behind of the “911 DOMESTIC TERRORIST Attacks:” PAUL SMITH – News Article “Video Footage” Supporting Cab Driver Clipped: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/smith-paul-abc- chopper7-pilot-911-scene PAUL SMITH – Daily News Article Regarding Death: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/smith-paul-911- helicopter-pilot-killed Page 107 of 118
  • PAUL SMITH – Cab Driver Story Of Being Clipped: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/smith-paul-abc-pilot- cab-clipped See Docket Sheet at Entry 236 of USA vs. Palfrey in the United States District Court (District of Columbia) - Criminal Case No. 1:07-cr-00046-JR-1. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/palfreydebra-docket There appears to have been a CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST involved because the United States of America had PERSONAL, FINANCIAL, and BUSINESS interest in the outcome of Palfreys case as well as the FEDERAL Public Defender to obtain information/evidence from Palfrey while APPEARING to represent her when their ONLY interest may have been to provide the United States Attorneys Office WITH INFORMATION and EVIDENCE Palfrey had to DEFEND her case. If the Federal Public Defender (A.J. Kramer and/or any other Public Defender) obtained information/evidence from Palfrey during the time of representation, then it is CLEAR that there may not ONLY be “Ethical” violations but CRIMINAL and CIVIL RIGHTS violations here. Therefore, there is simply NO EXCUSE for these CRIMINAL acts and INJUSTICES. Yet, it appears JAMES C. DUFF and Baker Donelson may have been in the DRIVER’S seat of these INDICTMENTS and the “JUDICIAL” proceedings! From looking at the DOCKET entries, it appears that the GOVERNMENT’S interest being to COVERING-UP information/evidence that Palfrey had in her possession and may have provided to the FEDERAL Public Defenders – i.e thus, moving the United States Government to MOVE to TRY and keep information from reaching the PUBLIC and PROTECTING its own. For instance: On 03/16/2007, there is a DOCKET Entry stating in part, ". . .the extent that they concern DEFENDANTS List. . .MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting Governments Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Protective Order. . ." On 03/19/07, there is a DOCKET Entry stating in part, ". . .Defendant received TRO papers in open court." TRO stands for "Temporary Restraining Order." On 03/22/07, there is a DOCKET Entry that states in part, ". . .to the extent that they concern DEFENDANTS List. . . ORDER GRANTING the Governments request for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Request for a Hearing as to DEBORAH PALFREY. It is Hereby Ordered that the defendant, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and her AGENTS and ATTORNEYS shall NOT act, or CAUSE any act to be DONE, to further the civil action entitled Palfrey v. Neble, Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-461 (GK), pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and shall NOT engage in any other similar acts or actions AGAINST Government witnesses, agents and INVESTIGATORS. It is further Ordered that this Order shall remain in effect if and until modified by the Court. . ." Page 108 of 118
  • On 05/10/2007, there is a DOCKET Entry stating in part, ". . .ORDER directing the DEFENDANT and her agents and ATTORNEYS, including her civil counsel, Montgomery Blair Sibley, NOT to release, further DISTRIBUTE, or otherwise PROVIDE to any person or organization the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates and/or the phone RECORDS of Deborah Jeane Palfrey. . ." On 05/18/07, there is a DOCKET Entry stating, "MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by A.J. Kramer. . ." This WITHDRAWAL coming approximately TWO and a Half (2 1/2) months FROM the Indictment filed against Deborah Palfrey. DOCKET SHEET: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/palfrey-debra-docketSIMILAR ATTACKS/JUDICIAL ABUSE – IE. INJUNCTIONAND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WERE SOUGHTAGAINST NEWSOME TO DEPRIVE HER OF PROTECTEDRIGHTS: In The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. vs. Vogel Denise Newsome lawsuit, United States of America President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson, United States Congress (Rand Paul) through their FRONTING Firm GRG attempted to subject Newsome to the SAME CRIMINAL practices/activities that Deborah Palfrey was subjected to – Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Injunction. However, Newsome did NOT give into such CRIMINAL and TERRORIST acts. Unlike Deborah Palfrey, Newsome KNEW who the PUPPET MASTERS were pulling the strings and their CONTROL/RUNNING of the Judicial System.  Palfreys counsel (Preston Burton) filed a Motion for Acquittal or for New Trial on her behalf on April 23, 2008. While a date may not have been set on Palfreys motion, it appears this time may have been used by the United States Government and its CONSPIRATORS to KILL/MURDER her by HANGING (i.e. as Palfrey mentioned in interview - LYNCHING). It appears LYNCHING being a COMMON method of practices the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) used in getting rid of KEY/TOP witnesses with CRITICAL/CRUCIAL information in regards to the 9/11 Attacks - i.e. as with the FBI’s recent telephone call on NOVEMBER 9, 2011 advising Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the THREAT on her life. NOW the attacks on Vogel Denise Newsome for purposes of keeping the PUBLIC/WORLD from obtaining this information. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mc-kinney- cynthiajusticedepartmentprotection Page 109 of 118
  • II. UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE IT APPEARS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND HIS LEGAL COUNSEL BAKER DONELSON MAY HAVE IN THE JULIAN ASSANGE (WIKILEAKS FOUNDER) MATTER: 28. Julian Assange is the Editor-In-Chief of WikiLeaks, Australian Publisher, Journalist, Computer Programmer, INTERNET Activist. . . that United States of America President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson and the United States Congress are attempting to SILENCE in RETALIATION of Mr. Assange posting documents on WikiLeaks which EXPOSES the United States of America’s War Crimes – i.e. NUREMBERG Violations: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/nuremberg-principles- wikipedia-information http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/nuremberg-principles- crimes-against-peace-wikipedia-information http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/nuremberg-principles-war- crime-wikipedia-information 29. It appears from the United States of America’s HISTORICAL past, President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson, the United States Congress with the AID of the United Kingdom and Sweden have CONSPIRED to have CRIMINAL charges brought against Julian Assange. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/assange-julian-wikipedia- information 30. “On 10 June 2010, it was reported that Pentagon officials were trying to determine his whereabouts. Based on this, there were reports that U.S. officials wanted to apprehend Assange. Ellsberg said that the arrest of Bradley Manning and subsequent speculation by U.S. officials about what Assange may be about to publish "puts his well-being, his physical life, in some danger now." In The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder called Ellsbergs concerns "ridiculous", and said that "Assanges tendency to believe that he is one step Page 110 of 118
  • away from being thrown into a black hole hinders, and to some extent discredits, his work." In Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald questioned "screeching media reports" that there was a "manhunt" on Assange underway, arguing that they were only based on comments by "anonymous government officials" and might even serve a campaign by the U.S. government, by intimidating possible whistleblowers.” [Wikipedia] On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into allegations concerning Assanges behaviour in separate sexual encounters involving two different women. Assange has said allegations of wrongdoing are "without basis", describing all the sexual encounters as consensual. In December 2010, Assange, then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning. According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women, neither of whom contacted the police until after they discovered they were both involved with him. [Wikipedia] On 6 December 2011, the Swiss bank, PostFinance, announced that it had frozen assets of Assanges totalling 31,000 euros, because he had "provided false information regarding his place of residence" when opening the account. MasterCard, Visa Inc., and Bank of America also halted dealings with WikiLeaks. Assange described these actions as "business McCarthyism". The English-language Swedish newspaper web-site "Local" quoted Assange on 27 December 2010, as saying that legal costs for the whistleblowing website and his own defence had reached £500,000. The decisions to halt donations to WikiLeaks by Visa, MasterCard and PayPal had cost £425,000, the same amount it costs the website to publish for six months. Assange said WikiLeaks had been receiving as much as £85,000 a day at its peak.”31. In the Julian Assange matter: On 5 December, the High Court certified that his case raised a point of law of general "public importance" that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: What does that say about this instant lawsuit that Newsome seeks to bring before the Supreme Court of the United States. Clearly the information contained in this instant pleading as well as previous pleading submitted to this Court supports matters of “PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL Importance.” Moreover, matters that are EXTRAORDINARY and/or EXCEPTIONAL in nature.32. As in the Julian Assange matter, as with this instant lawsuit and the PATTERN-OF- PRACTICE established, the United States of America’s President Barack Obama, his Legal Counsel Baker Donelson, the Obama Administration, the United States Congress and their Conspirators/Co-Conspirators, RELY upon their CONTROL and RUNNING of FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS – i.e. as Banks, etc. – to ATTACK litigants Bank Account(s) and/or means to FINANCE their legal actions. For instance in the Julian Assange matter, such attacks appear to yield the following: Page 111 of 118
  • Two very good reasons to ignore whats happening to the light- haired Australian as he looks at a plug-down of his website, bereft of funds- after Bank of America, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Western Union stopped processing financial transactions for Assange s ops, donations have almost jammed - and pushing hard a money-raising campaign that started on October 24 christened WikiLeaks Needs You. [Wikipedia]Did the London Courts and/or the United States White House/Barack Obama, BakerDonelson and/or Congress advise Julian Assange that Baker Donelson is legal counselto MAJOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (i.e. as Bank of America, J.P. MorganChase, Morgan Stanley, Swiss Banks, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal etc.] CONTROLS theFINANCIAL Institutions – i.e. resorting to such CRIMINAL attacks as that leveledagainst Newsome to obtain an undue/illegal advantage in lawsuit(s).Baker Donelson’s PAYPAL Connections: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/paypal-is-a-client- of-baker-donelson-bearman-caldwell-berkowitz Page 112 of 118
  • Baker Donelson’s FINANCIAL Institutions Connections: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson- bearman-caldwell-berkowitz-financial-institutionsBaker Donelson LONDON OFFICE: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson- london-office-13237660Baker Donelson is LEGAL COUNSEL to United States of America President BarackObama and Members of Congress – i.e. CONTROLS/RUNS the United StatesGovernment: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lance- bresearchinfo http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lancesr- advisortopresidenthhscounselorgovofva http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield-patentsIMPORTANT TO NOTE: Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell& Berkowitz TERRORIST and WHITE SUPREMACIST/RACIST Connections andCREATION of “KILL LIST” to take people out like Julian Assange, Newsome andothers who seeks to EXPOSE the United States of America’s CORRUPTION,CONSPIRACIES and TERRORIST Acts, etc. Furthermore, how they go aboutbringing FALSE and MALICIOUS lawsuits on behalf of their Clients – i.e. UnitedStates of America President Barack Obama, the United States of America Congress andtheir CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS – for purposes of SILENCING voicesand PREVENTING the TRUTH of the United States “911 DOMESTIC TERRORISTAttacks,” the “OBAMA BIRTHER ISSUE,” the “OBAMA HEALTH CARE BILL –Drafted/Created by Baker Donelson – ISSUE” and other WAR CRIMES, etc. Julian Assange doing the right thing in seeking protection for his life bySEEKING ASYLUM with the Republic of Ecuador from theTERRORIST/MURDERIST Regime of United States of America President BarackObama/Senate and their CONSPIRING Allies – i.e. Great Britain, Sweden, etc.http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/thank-you-to-the-government-of-the-republic-of-ecuador-for-asylum-of-julian-assange Page 113 of 118
  • SO REMOVE THE HOODS and let thePUBLIC/WORLD SEE THE FACES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S TERRORIST REGIME:http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/united-states-of-americas-ku-klux-klan-run-government Page 114 of 118
  • AS FOREIGN COUNTRIES are UNITING, theMESSAGE is CLEAR - - United States of AmericaPresident Barack Obama – NOBODY’S AFRAID of the BIG BAD WOLF nor the UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA and are VERY HAPPYTO SEE THE POWERS BEHIND SUCH EVIL and WICKEDNESS FALL: Page 115 of 118
  • THE ENDING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’STIME OF TERRORISM and OVERTHROW, is just a MATTER OF TIME! WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, THIS IS A MATTER OFPUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL INTEREST: In light of the recentCONTROVERSY between the United States of America and CHINA regarding the ChenGuangcheng matter (i.e. HUMAN RIGHTS Activist) and NOW what appears to be GREATBRITIAN’S handling of the JULIAN ASSANGE matter as well as other INTERNATIONAL Page 116 of 118
  • Governments’ Interest in the United States of America’s Government Officials ROLE in suchCRIMINAL and HUMAN/CIVIL Rights violations, a copy of this PLEADING is being madeavailable in SOCIAL/PUBLIC Forums as the Internet so that ForeignNations/Leaders/Citizens can CONTINUE to follow and see the CORRUPTION,COVER-UPS and CRIMINAL acts of United States of America’ CORRUPTOfficials in “ALL” Branches of the Government – i.e. EXECUTIVE Branch/UnitedStates of America White House/President Barack Obama and Administration; LEGISLATIVEBranch/United States of America CONGRESS/ Senate/House of Representatives; and theBranch/United States of America Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States’/William K. Suter’s PROMPT and IMMEDIATEattention to this matter and providing Newsome with an EXPLANATION for theSupreme Court of the United States of America’s “FAILURE-TO-PROSECUTE” her Petition For Extraordinary Writ as well as “FAILURE-TO- Page 117 of 118
  • TABLE OF EXHIBITSEXHIBIT DESCRIPTION A 07/18/11 Supreme Court Letter B 06/28/12 Envelope Postage Information C RULES of Supreme Court of the United States D Dorothy Owens vs. National Health Corporation Booklet E 28 USCA § 1651 F Florida A&M University Correspondence to Newsome G AFFIDAVIT Of Josh Miller H 06/04/12 Letter From Kentucky Senator Rand Paul I 03/17/11 Supreme Court Letter From Ruth Jones J 04/22/11 Response to March 17, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States’ Letter (BRIEF Only) K 04/27/11 Supreme Court Letter From Ruth Jones L 05/03/11 – Response to March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2011, Supreme Court of the United States’ Letters M USA vs. Real Property , et al. N 03/12/11 Petition For Extraordinary Writ O GOOGLE Information Regarding Vogel Denise Newsome P Baker Donelson Information (LEXIS NEXUS) Q Baker Donelson Information As of 09/11/2004 R Baker Donelson Listing of Government Positions Held S David Addington (Wikipedia Information) T Vice President Richard “Dick” Cheney (Wikipedia Information) U President George W. Bush/George H.W. Bush CONNECTIONS Ties To Osama Bin Laden Family Page 1 of 2
  • EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION V Marvin Bush (Wikipedia Information) W President Barack Obama’ SECRET “KILL” List X W. Lee Rawls Information Y Osama Bin Laden’s Burial At Sea Z Administrative Office of the United States Courts Information AA 08/01/11 Supreme Court Letter From Ruth Jones BB 01/07/11 – Petition For Extraordinary Writ (PHOTOCOPIED) CC DISQUALIFICATION Of Supreme Court Justices: The Certiorari Conundrum DD CONDUCT Or BIAS Of Law Clerk Or Other Judicial Support Personnel As Warranting Recusal Of Federal Judge Or Magistrate EE DIRECTOR (Judge Thomas F. Hogan) of Administrative Office of the United States Courts CONNECTIONS/TIES To Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz – Phelps Dunbar – Butler Snow O’Mara Stevens & Cannada FF CLIENT LISTINGS For Phelps Dunbar and Page Kruger & Holland GG GUIDE For Prospective Indigent Petitioners For Writs Of Certiorari Page 2 of 2
  • EXHIBIT “A”
  • EXHIBIT “B”
  • EXHIBIT “C”
  • EXHIBIT “D”
  • prev | next(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writsnecessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to theusages and principles of law.(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court whichhas jurisdiction. EXHIBIT “E”
  • Source(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 944; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 90,63 Stat. 102.)Historical and Revision Notes1948 ActBased on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 342, 376, 377 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 234, 261,262,36 Stat. 1156, 1162).Section consolidates sections 342, 376, and 377 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., withnecessary changes in phraseology.Such section 342 provided:“The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts,when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and writs ofmandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courtsappointed under the authority of the United States, or to persons holding office under theauthority of the United States, where a State, or an ambassador, or other public minister,or a consul, or vice consul is a party.”Such section 376 provided:“Writs of ne exeat may be granted by any justice of the Supreme Court, in cases wherethey might be granted by the Supreme Court; and by any district judge, in cases wherethey might be granted by the district court of which he is a judge. But no writ of ne exeatshall be granted unless a suit in equity is commenced, and satisfactory proof is made tothe court or judge granting the same that the defendant designs quickly to depart fromthe United States.”Such section 377 provided:“The Supreme Court and the district courts shall have power to issue writs of scire facias.The Supreme Court, the circuit courts of appeals, and the district courts shall have powerto issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for theexercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles oflaw.”The special provisions of section 342 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with reference to writsof prohibition and mandamus, admiralty courts and other courts and officers of theUnited States were omitted as unnecessary in view of the revised section.The revised section extends the power to issue writs in aid of jurisdiction, to all courtsestablished by Act of Congress, thus making explicit the right to exercise powers impliedfrom the creation of such courts.The provisions of section 376 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with respect to the powers ofa justice or judge in issuing writs of ne exeat were changed and made the basis ofsubsection (b) of the revised section but the conditions and limitations on the writ of neexeat were omitted as merely confirmatory of well-settled principles of law.The provision in section 377 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., authorizing issuance of writs ofscire facias, was omitted in view of rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedureabolishing such writ. The revised section is expressive of the construction recently placedupon such section by the Supreme Court in U.S. Alkali Export Assn. v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1120,325 U.S. 196, 89 L.Ed. 1554, and De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1130, 325 U.S.212, 89 L.Ed. 1566.1949 ActThis section corrects a grammatical error in subsection (a) ofsection 1651 of title 28,U.S.C.Amendments1949—Subsec. (a). Act May 24, 1949, inserted “and” after “jurisdictions”.Writ of ErrorAct Jan. 31, 1928, ch. 14, § 2,45 Stat. 54, as amended Apr. 26, 1928, ch. 440, 45 Stat.
  • Act Jan. 31, 1928, ch. 14, § 2,45 Stat. 54, as amended Apr. 26, 1928, ch. 440, 45 Stat.466; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 23,62 Stat. 990, provided that: “All Acts of Congressreferring to writs of error shall be construed as amended to the extent necessary tosubstitute appeal for writ of error.”
  • EXHIBIT “F”
  • EXHIBIT “G”
  • EXHIBIT “H”
  • EXHIBIT “I”
  • EXHIBIT “J”
  • ”” ” ” ”)
  • ””
  • !!” d”
  • ” h”” on” ”
  • h,”on”
  • ” ”
  • ” ”.”
  • ”” rrod”
  • ” ” ”ndon” on”
  • ” .” ” ” ” ”” ”
  • ” l””
  • .”
  • .””
  • ” ”” ”
  • .” ”
  • ” on”on”
  • .”” ”
  • 09)””
  • ” ”
  • .”
  • ”” ” .”
  • ” ”
  • ” ”
  • ””
  • t;”
  • 1923).’”
  • t” T”
  • 3).”
  • ””
  • t”
  • t”
  • ” ”es,” ” ”
  • ” ””
  • ””
  • ”) ” ”
  • ”;
  • ” PEN”
  • ” ” ”.”
  • .”” ”
  • .” ” .” ”” ” ”
  • ” ” 1”” ”
  • ” S” S.” S” S.” ” S” S”
  • ” SUES” Fact” ” ””
  • est” t”est” al”
  • ates.” ”” ” N” ” ” l” ”
  • NG”S” ”
  • S”] n”” S” S”]
  • 042211-USPS MAILING RECEIPTS (SupremeCourt, JusticeRoberts, PresidentObama, & SolicitorGeneral)
  • EXHIBIT “K”
  • EXHIBIT “L”
  • No. _____________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME PETITIONER V. STOR-ALL ALFRED, LLC; JUDGE JOHN ANDREW WEST/ HAMILTON COUNTY (OHIO) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 250 RESPONDENT(S) IN RE VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME ON PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RESPONSE TO MARCH 17, 2011 AND APRIL 27, 2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ LETTERS – IDENTIFYING EXTRAORDINARY WRIT(S) TO BE FILED AND WRIT(S) UNDER ALL WRITS ACT TO BE FILED1 COMES NOW Petitioner, Vogel Denise Newsome – a/k/a Denise V. Newsome (“Newsome”and/or “Petitioner Newsome”) – WITHOUT WAIVING HER RIGHTS and ARGUMENTS/ISSUESand DEFENSES raised and/or set forth in the October 9, 2010 “Emergency Motion to Stay;Emergency Motion for Enlargement of Time and Other Relief The United States Supreme CourtDeems Appropriate To Correct The Legal Wrongs/Injustices Reported Herein” (“EM/ORS”),subsequent pleadings (i.e. which includes Petition for Extraordinary Writ [“PFEW”]) submitted forfiling with the Supreme Court of the United States and provides this her Response To March 17,2011 and April 27, 2011, Supreme Court Of The United States’ Letters – Identifying ExtraordinaryWrit(s) To Be Filed and Writ(s) Under All Writs Act To Be Filed (“RT031711&042711SCL”). This 1 BOLDFACE, ITALICS, UNDERLINE, etc. added for emphasis. Page 1 of 113
  • instant filing in response to this Court’s March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2001, letters is submitted inthat the information contained herein supports the EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL andCRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances involved. Said March 17, 2011 letter which states in part: "The above-entitled petition for an extraordinary writ seeking unspecified relief was received on March 17, 2011. Please inform this office by letter, as soon as possible, what type of extraordinary writ you are seeking to file, i.e. extraordinary writ of mandamus, mandamus/prohibition, habeas corpus. This office will retain all of the copies of the petition."See EXHIBIT “1” – March 17, 2011 Letter attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if setforth in full herein. This Court’s April 27, 2011 letter which states in part: Your letter and attachments were received in this office on April 26, 2011, and are returned for the reason set forth in my letter dated March 17, 2011, copy enclosed. You have failed to identify the type of extraordinary writ you are seeking to file.See EXHIBIT “44” – April 27, 2011 Letter attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if setforth in full herein. In further support thereof, Newsome REITERATES the followingEXTRAORDINARY Writ(s) and Writ(s) governed under the All Writs Act(provided in her April 22, 2011 submittal) are being sought to be filed: 1) Original Writ 2) Writ of Conspiracy 3) Writ of Course 4) Writ of Detinue 5) Writ of Entry 6) Writ of Exigi Facias 7) Writ of Formedon 8) Writ of Injunction 9) Writ of Mandamus 10) Writ of Possession 11) Writ of Praecipe 12) Writ of Protection 13) Writ of Recaption 14) Writ of Prohibition 15) Writ of Review 16) Writ of Supersedeas 17) Writ of Supervisory Control 18) Writ of Securitate Pacis 19) Extraterritorial WritsRather than bring separate actions, Newsome believes that the statutes/laws will sustain that facts,evidence and legal conclusions provided in this matter that the Extraordinary Writs/Writs provide“causes of like nature, or relative to the same question” and that “actions brought by Newsome Page 2 of 113
  • against different Respondent(s) provide similar defenses” and consolidation requirements forpurposes of EXPEDITION of matters, avoiding UNNECESSARY COSTS or DELAYS as witnessedso far in the Supreme Court of the United States’ handling of this matter in its ATTEMPTS todeprive Newsome rights and EQUAL PROTECTION, EQUAL PRIVILEGES and IMMUNITIESand DUE PROCESS OF LAWS in, it appears, to get her to only identify “ONE” Extraordinary Writwhen there are SEVERAL involved in this legal action as set forth herein and in the Petition ForExtraordinary Writ (“PFEW”) and EM/ORS to which this instant RT031711&042711SCL sustains.Decisions (well OVER 100 years) of this Court will sustain the need to consolidate the ExtraordinaryWrit(s)/Writs under the All Writs Act contained herein – and/or known to this Court to correct thelegal wrongs complained of herein: Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Hillmon, 12 S.Ct. 909 (U.S.Kan.,1892) - Under Rev.St. § 921, 28 U.S.C.A. § 734, providing that “causes of a like nature, or relative to the same question,” may be consolidated, for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary costs or delays, “whenever it appears reasonable to do so,” actions . . . by one plaintiff against different defendants, in which the defenses are the same, may be consolidated, but the causes of action must remain distinct, requiring separate verdicts, and no defendant must be deprived of any right material to his defense. Bowen v. Chase, 94 U.S. 812 (U.S.N.Y.,1876) - Actions depending between the same parties, and upon the same questions in controversy may be consolidated. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 96 S.Ct. 1048 (U.S.Ohio,1976) - A suit against an employer for breach of collective bargaining agreement and a breach of contract suit against the labor union may be joined in one action. Baltimore & O.S.W.R. Co. v. U.S., 31 S.Ct. 368 (U.S.Ohio,1911) - The federal circuit court may properly consolidate. . . several actions brought by the United States against a carrier to recover the penalty prescribed by . . . for violations of its requirement . . . Bowen v. Chase, 94 U.S. 812 (U.S.N.Y.,1876) - Actions depending between the same parties, and upon the same questions in controversy may be consolidated. If the Supreme Court of the United States is DENYINGNewsome the right to bring these Extraordinary Writs and Writs underthe All Writs Act, it needs to state its reasons for FAILURE to comply Page 3 of 113
  • with the statutes/laws governing said matters and why its handling ofthis matter appears to be CONTRARY to decisions of this Court.Furthermore, whether this Court is attempting to OBSTRUCT justice in its handling of this matter?Thus, further REITERATING this Court advising of ALL “Conflict Of Interests” that exist (if any)in its handling of this matter. Newsome further states the following: 1. This instant pleading is submitted in good faith and is not submitted for purposes of delay, harassment, hindering proceedings, embarrassment, obstructing the administration of justice, vexatious litigation, increasing the cost of litigation, etc. and is hereby filed to protect the rights of the Petitioner/Newsome and to provide the Supreme Court of the United States with a response to its March 17, 2011 letter. 2. This instant pleading and legal action has been timely brought in accordance with the Rules and statutes/laws governing said matters and in accordance with this Court’s March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2011, letters executed by Ruth Jones in the Clerk’s Office on behalf of this Court and/or William K. Suter. 3. While this Court requested that Newsome provide a “letter” she believes the submittal of a response in form of pleading is appropriate and applicable out of concerns of the DILATORY tactics as well as further unlawful/illegal practices by members in this Court’s Clerk’s Office to attempt to USURP authority – i.e. little “Indians” wanting to be Chief and perform the role of the Justices of this Court; moreover, the DESPARATE attempts that may have been made by this Court in efforts to AID and ABET in the COVER-UP of the CRIMINAL and CIVIL WRONGS of its employees in efforts to shield/mask the ILLEGAL ANIMUS of President Barack Obama, his Administration and others leveled against Newsome. While it appears this Court may have been attempting to avoid being provided sufficient information to aid in the handling of this matter and advising Newsome that “Motion for Leave” would now not be required, this instant RT031711&042711SCL is hereto provided for purposes of clarifying and aiding this Court in the handling of this matter – i.e. providing information pertinent to March 17, 2011 request and reiterating pertinent information in the Motion for Leave Newsome previously provided this Court. 4. This instant RT031711&042711SCL is also filed because Newsome believes it is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest for citizens as well as Foreign Leaders/Nations to see just what she has had to endure in seeking justice for the legal wrongs complained of in the Petition for Extraordinary Writ (“PFEW”) and EM/ORS. Moreover, concerns that the Courts and United States Government may have moved to COVER-UP the criminal acts/civil violations leveled against Newsome and/or citizen(s) of the United States in RETALIATION of having EXPOSED the CORRUPTION in the United States Government/Government Officials. Page 4 of 113
  • 5. THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS, PUBLIC/WORLD NEEDS TOKNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AND WHAT TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST GROUP(S) APPEAR TO BE IN CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT – It is time for the Barack Obama Regime to GO – STEP DOWN!!As President Barack Obama has recently requested Foreign Leaders – i.e. forinstance, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Lybia’s Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi. See EXHIBITS “2” and “3” respectively– Articles regarding PresidentObama’s request that Foreign Leaders step down attached hereto and incorporated byreference as if set forth in full herein. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 123 S.Ct. 1057 (U.S.,2003) - Crime of “coercion” is separate from extortion and involves the use of force or threat of force to restrict anothers freedom of action. TERRORISM: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments often for ideological or political reasons.2 DOMESTIC TERRORISM: Terrorism that occurs primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 USCA § 2331(5)] Terrorism that is carried out against one’s own government or fellow citizens.3 INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: Terrorism that occurs primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or that transcends national boundaries by the means in which it is carried out, the people it is intended to intimidate, or the place where the perpetrators operate to seek asylum. 4 TERRORIST: a) One who engage in acts or an act of terrorism.5 b) Somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes.6 TERRORIZE: a) To fill or overpower, with terror; terrify. b) Coerce by intimidation or fear.7 c) Motivate somebody by violence to intimidate or coerce somebody with violence or the threat of violence.8 d) Make somebody very fearful to fill somebody with feelings of intense fear over a period of time. TERRORIST - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities. (EMPHASIS ADDED). ACT OF TERRORISM, TERRORISM, TERRORIST ACT - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that2 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Edition).3 Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition).4 Id.5 The American Heritage. . .6 Encarta World English Dictionary (1999).7 The American Heritage. . .8 Encarta World. . . Page 5 of 113
  • are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. RADICAL CELL, TERRORIST CELL - a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells usually dont know each other or the identity of their leadership." SUPREMACIST: 1) A person who believes in or advocates the supremacy of a particular group, esp. a racial group.9 2) One who believes that a certain group is or should be supreme.10 3) Somebody who holds the view that a particular group is innately superior to others and therefore, is entitled to dominate them.11 SUPREMACY: A position of superiority or authority over all others.12/13 6. Foreign Leaders are NOT going to be deceived. They are aware of such SUPREMACIST and TERRORIST groups that are running the United States Government. For example, see the Interview Transcript with Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wherein said knowledge is made known - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39210911/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa.14 Knowledge confirming statements in Newsome’s July 13, 2010 Email. 9 Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2 nd Edition). 10 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Edition). 11 Encarta World English Dictionary (1999). 12 Encarta World. . . 13 This can be said of this instant lawsuit. If it had not been for Newsome’s patience, diligence, research, etc. the UnitedStates Supreme Court as well as United States citizens would not be aware of the TERRORISTIC acts and CONSPIRACY that hasbeen orchestrated and carried out under the Leadership/Direction of Baker Donelson, its client (Liberty Mutual) and others againstAfrican-Americans and/or people of color; as well as smaller countries/nations. Why? Because this instant action will EXPOSE justhow subtle/elusive such SUPREMACIST/TERRORIST in not wanting to be detected and their intelligence/experience/expertise incovering up their RACIST/DISCRMINATORY/ PREJUDICIAL motives/agenda – i.e. exchanging the white hoods for business suitsand judicial robes, etc. to AVOID detection. See EXHIBIT “I” – DAVID DUKE/KU KLUX KLAN attached hereto and incorporatedby reference as if set forth in full herein. 14 Transcript: U.S. has hostility against our people, Ahmadinejad says . . .And-- all-- these years, they-- stood against our people. They continued hostilities, and they cooperated with all of ourenemies. President Obama said, "We are going to make it-- to make it up." And we welcomed that idea and position. I sent a messagefor him after his election. Of course, I received no answer. He just gave a general response. And that is not considered a response to mymessage. We think maybe President Obama wants to do something, but there are pressures-- pressure groups in the United States who donot allow him to do so. Even if he wants to do something, apparently there are certain groups who do not allow him to do it. Andrea Mitchell: Youre suggesting that President Obama— President Ahmadinejad: We think they are – Andrea Mitchell: --doesnt have-- doesnt have-- the-- as Commander in Chief and leader of the United States does not havethe decision-making power over what he does? President Ahmadinejad: Do you really think President Obama can do anything he wishes to? Andrea Mitchell: Within-- within the— President Ahmadinejad: He does not— Andrea Mitchell: --the constructs of the United States Constitution. But what would you like to hear from President Obama?And what would you like to say to him? Page 6 of 113
  • Foreign Leaders/Countries are aware that the 7. United States Citizens DO NOT elect the President/Vice President of the United States – Electoral Colleges do. President Barack Obama was placed in the United States White House for DECEPTIVE purposes and all is “COMING OUT IN THE WASH!!” 8. FOREIGN LEADERS/CITIZENS are NOT DECEIVED. They have been made aware of the WILLIE LYNCH practices and realize that the United States DOES NOT have the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X or Medgar Evers in the White House. NEITHER is that the likes of a NELSON MANDELA in the United States White House – i.e. Blacks WILLING/DETERMINED to put their lives on the line to assure FREEDOM and EQUALITY for ALL. Instead, products of the WILLIE LYNCH practices – United States President Barack Obama, United States Attorney General Eric Holder and President of the NAACP Benjamin Jealous - have been placed on DISPLAY as the NEW FACES of the African- American/Black male. See EXHIBIT “4” – Excerpt from the October PowerPoint Presentation entitled, “Clean Out Congress 2010 – Americans Take BACK Your Country/Government – Come November 2010 Vote OUT The Incumbents Career Politicians” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 9. It is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest for citizens and Foreign Nations/Leaders to see DEMOCRACY at work and see FIRST-HAND how the JUDICIAL system works in one of the MOST POWER COUNTRIES in the world. Moreover, how the Respondents and United States Government has resorted to CRIMINAL acts for purposes of OPPRESSION, THREATS, HARASSMENT, BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, etc. against Newsome and/or citizens who engage in protected activities – i.e. file complaints EXPOSING Human/Civil Rights violations, Discrimination, Retaliation, Terrorism/Supremacist/Racism, etc. Thank God, NATIONS – such as China and others - are coming out to address the HUMAN RIGHTS and CORRUPTION in the United States Government. Stands as Newsome requested in her October 2010 PowerPoint Presentation. See EXHIBIT “5” – 04/11/11 Article “China Report Criticizes U.S. Human Rights Record” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. See EXHIBIT “6” October 2010 PowerPoint Presentation entitled, “Clean Out Congress 2010 – Americans Take BACK Your Country/Government – Come November 2010 Vote OUT The Incumbents Career Politicians” attached President Ahmadinejad: The Constitution is already on the [unintel]. What about the political scene? The reality on theground? Is he able to do everything he wishes to? Personally, its not true. There are different political group, there are a lo—different lobbyist pressure groups, and more important, there are Zionists there. We say, if he wants to do something, there arecertain groups who do not allow him to do so. Page 7 of 113
  • hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. It is about time for Foreign Countries/Leaders and their citizens let the United States know that they have had enough of its CORRUPTION and INTERFERENCE. See EXHIBIT “7” – Meetings with Foreign Leaders attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 10. United States President Barack Obama came out PUBLICLY andrequested that Foreign Leaders – such as for instance Egypt’s President HosniMubarak and Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi - STEP DOWN. See EXHIBITS“2” and “3” respectively attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forthin full herein. Now that Newsome has brought this legal action ADDRESSING THECORRUPTION, CONSPIRACIES and COVER-UP along with supporting evidenceas well as provided Exhibits/Appendices to sustain the EM/ORS and PFEW, “WILLPRESIDENT OBAMA and HIS ADMINISTRATION STEP DOWN? 11. The United States has a President (Barack Obama) who has recentlycome under question regarding his CITIZENSHIP. Even under such SCRUTINY,President Obama CANNOT and or WILL NOT produce his “Birth Certificate.”Instead, information regarding a “Certificate of LIVE Birth” NOT “BIRTHCertificate” is released to the PUBLIC. Furthermore, it appears that President Obamais relying upon his Lawyers/Advisors (i.e. such as Baker, Donelson, Bearman,Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC (“Baker Donelson”)) who have been shown to beCORRUPT!! See EXHIBIT “8” – regarding Birther issue attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Information which isPERTINENT and RELEVANT because it goes to the United States President BarackObama’s and his Administration’s CREDIBILITY!!! Which isCRUCIAL and of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest! Newsome believes it is also IMPORTANT for the PUBLIC/WORLD to see how Lawyers/Advisors for the United States President handle such issues. Newsome’s experience with the likes of Baker Donelson and/or Respondents in this matter is that they NEVER produce ANY evidence to REBUT that is presented. ALL Respondents ever do is provide MERE “WORDS” by way of rebuttal and ATTEMPT to MISLEAD the FACTFINDER away from the TRUTH!! See for instance EXHIBIT “9” – Obama’s Response to Birther Issue attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. JUST WORDS – Surely if his Administration was willing to provide the “Certificate of Live Birth,” President Obama should have a Birth Certificate. It is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE that the CITIZENS of the United States want to see. Page 8 of 113
  • PERTINENT FACTS THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW MATTERS MAY BE RELATED TO THIS INSTANT LEGAL ACTION: a) Newsome’s FIRST response to this Court’s March 17, 2011 letter was submitted on or about April 22, 2011 (EMPHASIS ADDED). See EXHIBITS “42” – United States Postal Service Mailing Receipts and “43” – April 22, 2011 Cover Letter submitted to the attention of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and William K. Suter (Clerk) respectively, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. b) On or about April 22, 2011 (EMPHASIS ADDED), United States President Barack Obama allegedly advises one of his many attorneys (Judith Corley) to obtain “CERTIFIED” copies (EMPHASIS ADDED) of his “original certificate of live birth” - stating in part: I am writing to request two certified copies of my original certificate of live birth. With this letter, I hereby authorize my personal counsel, Ms. Judith Corley of Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C., to act on my behalf in providing any additional information or paying any fees required by the Department of Health to fulfill my request. Ms. Corley is also authorized to make any necessary arrangements for delivery of the certified copies from your office. . . . See EXHIBIT “50” – 04/22/11 Letter from President Obama to Loretta J. Fuddy (Director of Health, State of Hawaii – Department of Health) attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. c) From the April 22, 2011 (FRIDAY), letters of President Obama and his attorney (Judith Corley) they are requesting that Government Official(s) VIOLATE policies in place to extend to him SPECIAL FAVORS - for instance stating: "As you know, several years ago, my client requested a certified copy of his birth certificate and received, pursuant to the policy and practice of the Hawaii Department of Health, a Certification of Live Birth, sometimes referred to as a "short- form" or abbreviated birth certificate. This Certification of Live Birth is, of course, legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawaii. Moreover, it is my understanding that it is, and has been, the Department of Healths longstanding policy and practice to provide only the "short-form" version when a certified copy of a birth certificate is requested. We understand that the Department of Health has adopted this policy for sound administrative reasons. However, we are writing to request a waiver of the Department of Healths policy, so that my client can obtain two certified copies of his original, "long form" birth certificate. Waiver of the Departments policy in this instance would allow my client to make a certified copy of his original birth certificate publicly available and would also relieve the burden currently being Page 9 of 113
  • placed on the Department of Health by the numerous inquiries it receives from the media and others relating to my clients birth record." See EXHIBIT “50” – April 22, 2011 correspondence of President Obama and his counsel (Corley) attached hereto and incorporated as if set forth in full herein. The State of Hawaii requires the completion of "REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF BIRTH RECORD." Was President Obama required to complete this Form? See EXHIBIT “53” – Request attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.d) If indeed President Obama wanted a copy of his “BIRTH” Certificate and/or “Certificate of Live Birth” the State of Hawaii has a form that is to be used. Such requests are to be SUBMITTED TO: State Department of Health Office of Health Status Monitoring Issuance/Vital Statistics Section P.O. Box 3378 Honolulu, HI 96801 The State of Hawaii provides information on their website. Furthermore, has provided ACCESS to form to be completed and submitted. Nevertheless, President Obama merely relied upon an April 22, 2011 letter – rather than the REQUIRED Form – to obtain a copy of the April 25, 2011 release of Certification of Live Birth.e) On or about April 25, 2011 (EMPHASIS ADDED), the Supreme Court of the United States receives Newsome’s April 22, 2011, Response to March 17, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States’ Letter. See EXHIBIT “42” attached hereto.f) On or about April 25, 2011 (Monday) (EMPHASIS ADDED), the Governor for the State of Mississippi – Haley Barbour – announced that he would not be running for President in 2012. See EXHIBIT “55” - Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour Wont Run For President attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. What a COINCIDENT that such a MAJOR announcement comes on the SAME date that the Supreme Court of the United States received Newsome’s April 22, 2011 submittal. A potential United States Presidential Candidate that may be linked to Baker Donelson and Ku Klux Klan ties: But the 63-year-old southerner with a syrupy drawl also faced unique obstacles that threatened to distract attention from his campaign message. As he began his campaign, he had to defend comments that suggested a lack of sensitivity about segregationist activities in his home town during the 1950s Page 10 of 113
  • and about contemporary efforts to honor an early Ku Klux Klan leader with a commemorative license plate tied to the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. Governor Haley Barbour (Republican) who also appears on the “LIST” of positions that Obama’s legal counsel/advisor Baker Donelson claims ENTITLEMENT to – “Governor of Mississippi.” See EXHIBITS “10” and “27” respectively attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full herein.g) On or about April 25, 2011 (Monday) (EMPHASIS ADDED) the State of Hawaii Department of Health PROMPTLY releases an ALLEGED certified copy of President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. See EXHIBIT “48” – Certificate of Live Birth information attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. You may want to note the following: i. President Obama’s “alleged” Certificate of Live Birth was PURPOSEFULLY placed and reproduced on paper to “MATCH” the Background of Certificate of Live Birth. Interesting how a “REPRODUCED” copy can have the “SAME” Background as the Certificate. WOW the wonders one can do to MANIPULATE a document. In fact, President Obama’s counsel/advisor Baker Donelson also laid claims to ENTITLEMENT to positions such as Chief Counsel, Acting Director, and Acting Deputy Director of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services within the United States Department of Homeland Security. See EXHIBITS “10” and “27” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Baker Donelson ONLY AFTER Newsome’s going public having information SCRUBBED from Internet. ii. When documents, such as President Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth,” are CERTIFIED copies, they are to CONTAIN the “OATH” of person preparing/producing document “As Well As” the “SEAL.” This information is MISSING from President Obama’s 2008 release as well as his recent April 27, 2011 Release. Therefore, these documents ARE NOT “Authentic” nor can be received as “LEGALLY” sufficient. Even with an embossed seal, may have been used, this is a Certificate and President Obama and his counsel FAILED to REVEAL the seal as Page 11 of 113
  • well as whether or not the PROPER signature(S) if more than one is required by Hawaii laws was provided. For instance, Vital Records such as the “Certificate of Live Birth” may have a statement worded such as: WARNING: This certificate is not valid if it has been altered in any way whatsoever or if it does not bear the raised seal of the office of issuance. If you look at the April 27, 2011 “Certificate of Live Birth” provided by President Barack Obama, notice that while “Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.” provides a “STAMP” stating, “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” – there is NO State “SEAL” and “DATE” stamp is questionable (i.e. for instance look at the “2” in the 25 and then look at the “2” in the year 2011. Why could “State Registrar” not simply “WRITE” the date certifying when executed. Notice how the “LOWER PORTION” of “Certificate of Live Birth” is missing information which may contain “FORM number” of this document, etc. as well as certification information required by Department of Health Official when this ALLEGED Certificate of Live Birth was filed (i.e. in 1961)iii. How CONVENIENT it is that the ALLEGED doctor that was the Attendant and/or witness to President Obama’s birth is DECEASED.iv. TYPEWRITER was used to prepare document; however, NOTICE that the dates of “8-7-61” and “8-8-61” are HANDWRITTEN. Then for the “Local Reg.” date is “STAMPED” as well as the date for “Reg. General.” Now look at another “Certificate of Live Birth” provided for a person allegedly named “ALAN” claiming to also have been born in Hawaii. All “PERTINENT” information is entered it appears with use of “TYPEWRITER” – including dates for those signing document. Notice that DATES for those signing “Alan’s” Certificate of Live Birth appear to have all been present and the matter taken care on the Page 12 of 113
  • same date of “6 Sept 63” and then was forwarded on to the “Reg. General” who provided “Date Accepted” as “SEP 10 1963.” Note VARIATION in appearance of date stamp used (EMPHASIS ADDED). See EXHIBIT “54” – Hawaii Birth documents retrieved from the Internet attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Looking at another “Certificate of Live Birth” provided with President Obama’s adjacent, all “PERTINENT” information is entered it appears with use of “TYPEWRITER” – including dates for those signing document. Notice that DATES for those signing Certificate of Live Birth appear to have all been present and the matter taken care on the same date of “20 Feb 61” and then was forwarded on to the “Reg. General” who provided “LATER” date other than that of Local Reg. Then there is a Certification clause which appears to state: "THIS CERTIFIES THAT THE ABOVE IS A TRUE AND ___ (sic – illegible) COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE HEALTH STATISTICS. HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. Being executed by TWO government officials. Nevertheless, President Obama gets SPECIAL attention and treatment and document appears to be in the custody of only ONE person (Alvin T. Oneka).v. While Newsome has no children, her concerns as to how the Obama Certificate of Live Birth filing was handled. For instance, Obama’s mother’s alleged signature was provided on or about 8-7-61 and the Attendant’s on or about 8-8-61 – the same date that it was provided to the Department of Health. So did the HOSPITAL submit his alleged document for filing or did the Attendant do a HAND DELIVERY and, if so, was this the doctor’s normal way of handling business for births witnessed. Furthermore, the HOSPITAL should also have RECORDS of BIRTHS on the date President Obama is alleged to have been born there. A map of Hawaii is attached at EXHIBIT “52” of this instant filing and is incorporated herein by reference. Page 13 of 113
  • vi. How CONVENIENT it was for President Barack Obama to get Loretta J. Fuddy (Director of Health) who was CONFIRMED on or about March 29, 2011 – See EXHIBIT “51” - Senate Confirms Topping, Fuddy, Lim attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Not ONLY that, LESS THAN A MONTH in Office and Fuddy clearly went AGAINST policies and procedures to accommodate President Obama and his attorney(s)/counsel/advisor(s), stating: "As director of health for the state of Hawaii, I have the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made. Through that authority, in recognition of your status as president of the United States, I am making an exception to the current departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy," she wrote. See EXHIBIT “49” – Obama Birth Certificate Moved to More Secure Location Months Ago attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Providing a hard copy rather than the “computer- generated” copies which may leave one wondering whether this may be the reason why President Obama released the April 27, 2011, “Certificate of Live Birth” document – i.e. which appears may be a FAKE and FORGED from another document. Moreover, that FAILURE to provide a computer-generated copy may be due to President Obama and his attorneys/counselors/ advisors have NOT been able to figure out how to get around that –i.e. in that the computer may not be able to generate a document from information that is NOT there.vii. On or about April 27, 2011 (Thursday) (EMPHASIS ADDED), President Obama released document alleged to be his “Certificate of Live Birth.” See EXHIBIT “49” – Articles on release attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.viii. On or about April 27, 2011 (EMPHASIS ADDED) the Supreme Court of the United States returned Newsome’s April 22, 2011 Response to March 17, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States’ Letter. See EXHIBIT “44” – Page 14 of 113
  • 04/27/11 Supreme Court of the United States’ letter executed by Ruth Jones attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. The record evidence will SUSTAIN that this Court has been TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADQUATELY requested to provide Newsome with information regarding “Conflict of Interests.” Such request being made in GOOD-FAITH in that President Obama’s attorney/counsel/advisors (Baker Donelson) have made known their TIES/ RELATIONSHIPS to KEY judicial officials in which the Supreme Court of the United States has been NAMED as well as President Obama since being in office has NOMINATED two (2) Justices (i.e. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) to this Court which have been CONFIRMED and are presently serving. Moreover, record evidence will SUSTAIN that Baker Donelson is sure to see that it is on Judicial NOMINATION Committees. See for instance Exhibit “18” of EM/ORS incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full herein. Furthermore, EXHIBITS “10” and “27” respectively of this instant RT031711&042711SCL which provides the following information in part: Chief of Staff of the Supreme Court of the United States; Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the United States; . . . United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge; United States District Court Judges; United States Attorneys; Presidents of State and Local Bar Associations 12. President Obama in producing not only the recentlyreleased April 25, 2011 “Certificate of Live Birth” and the 2008“Certification of Live Birth,” has basically opened himself up to“SUBPOENA(s)”, etc. and right of CITIZENS of the United States to“Challenge” authenticity of the document he produced. He is asitting United States President who took an “OATH” of Office. 13. From media information, it appears President Obama is playing upwhat may be a FRAUDULENTLY produced “Certificate of Live Birth.” Going asfar as to make an appearance on Oprah Winfrey – one of PresidentObama’s TOP/KEY supporters and one that has been known to present andentertain CRIMINALS on her show even going as far as to promote through her“BOOK CLUB” works of Authors producing false/fraudulent and/or misleading Page 15 of 113
  • information. Now it appears that Oprah Winfrey may be using herPLATFORM and CELEBRITY STATUS to help promote the mostrecent CORRUPTION and COVER-UP of the United StatesGovernment in the handling of President Barack Obama’s BirthCertificate. 14. It is a GOOD THING President Obama andMichelle Obama were NOT invited to the “Royal Wedding”of Prince William and Kate on April 29, 2011. Newsomeknows she would NOT want a President claiming to be theFIRST alleged African-American President of the UnitedStates who appears to be engaged in the VERY practiceswhich have OPPRESSED and DISCRIMINATED againstAfrican-Americans and/or people of color. 15. It is an INSULT and EMBARASSMENT that the United StatesGovernment has allowed such firms as Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &Berkowitz, PC (“Baker Donelson”) to assume KEY and CRITICAL positions forpurposes of CREATING a CORRUPT and TERRORIST/SUPREMACISTgovernment to INFLICT pain and suffering on its citizens and upon Foreign NationsWITHOUT just cause to do so. Baker Donelson acknowledging their people inPROMINENT positions as: Chief of Staff to the President of the United States; United States Secretary of State; United States Senate Majority Leader; Members of the United States Senate; Members of the United States House of Representatives; Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control for United States; Department of Treasury; Director of the Administrative Office of the United States; Chief Counsel, Acting Director, and Acting Deputy Director of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services within the United States Department of Homeland Security; Majority and Minority Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; Member of United States President’s Domestic Policy Council; Counselor to the Deputy Secretary for the United States Department of Chief of Staff of the Supreme Court HHS; of the United States; Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the Page 16 of 113
  • United States; Deputy under Secretary of International Trade for the United States Department of Commerce; Ambassador to Japan; Ambassador to Turkey; Ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman; Governor of Tennessee; Governor of Mississippi; Deputy Governor and Chief of Staff for the Governor of Tennessee; Commissioner of Finance & Administration (Chief Operating Officer) - State of Tennessee; Special Counselor to the Governor of Virginia; United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge; United States District Court Judges; United States Attorneys; Presidents of State and Local Bar AssociationsHowever, upon Newsome’s going PUBLIC and WORLDWIDE, Baker Donelson hashad this information SCRUBBED from the Internet. However, NOT before Newsomecould RETRIEVE such information to sustain its DOMINENCE and CONTROL inHIGH POSITIONS – See EXHIBIT “10” attached hereto and incorporated byreference as if set forth in full herein.Baker Donelson being a law firm which has opposed and REPEATEDLY engaged incriminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome for purposes of destroying her life aswell as other citizens. Furthermore, it is an EMBARASSMENT and INSULT tothe United States when it has been shown to the PUBLIC and WORLD thatsuch a CORRUPT law firm as Baker Donelson, its client (LIBERTYMUTUAL INSURANCE) and those who conspire with them areREPEATEDLY giving a SHELLACKING and BEAT DOWN in lawsuitsinvolving Newsome that they have to RESORT to criminal acts – i.e.KIDNAPPING, BRIBERY, BLACKMAIL, EMBEZZLEMENT,EXTORTION, etc. in efforts of obtaining an UNDUE/UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL advantage for itself and those they represent and/or conspirewith. IMPORTANT TO NOTE Citizens may want to know why the United States is LOSING the Wars/Battlesin IRAN, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN – Look at the law firm (i.e. Baker Donelson)Government Officials may receive counsel from. A Law Firm thatPROMOTES/INCORPORATES and SUPPORTS and IMPOSES Terrorist/Supremacist/Racist behavior on those they want to CONTROL and OPPOSES orSPEAK OUT AGAINST THEM such as Newsome. Recently a mother (Mary Tillman) of the late Football great (Pat Tillman) came out blasting the Obama Administration for Page 17 of 113
  • retaining retired General Stanley McChrystal for Co-Chair of the “Joining Forces” Program. See EXHIBIT “11” – Article regarding Mary Tillman attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. What this mother may not know, is that this is not ONLY President Barack Obama but his Lawyers/Advisors (i.e. Baker Donelson) at work. They throw out people and/or just merely move them to another post; however, the PERPETRATORS/CONSPIRATORS and CRIMINALS are ALWAYS basically the same regardless which ADMINISTRATION (Republican or Democrat) is in the White House. Baker Donelson and their COHORTS are ROOTED DEEPLY in the Government, Government Corruption, and the COVER-UP by the Government. So when CITIZENS/PUBLIC hear for instance that there is “Change” in the Obama Administration, it is merely President Obama, Baker Donelson, etc. merely PROJECTING information for DECEPTIVE purposes; however, the CRIMINAL/ TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST Regime players are still in office. See for instance EXHIBIT “12” – Change in Administration attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. However, in doing research you may find that ALL if not the MAJORITY are ASSOCIATED with Baker Donelson. Citizens may want to know why the ECONOMY of the United States is so bad –Yes, look at who is sitting in the TOP/HEAD seat – BAKER DONELSON!!Moreover, who may ACTUALLY be running the United States Government, Banks,Real Estate, etc. See EXHIBIT “13” – The Hands Behind Government Operationsattached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Now thislaw firm has SCRUBBED information from the INTERNET as it attempts to TUCK-TAIL and HIDE!! Well Newsome has News - - BUSTED. . . BUSTED. . . BUSTED.Just as such law firms as Baker Donelson and those they have CONSPIRED with havefelt at LIBERTY to have information POSTED on the INTERNET regarding Newsomeknown to be false, obtained and provided for CRIMINAL INTENT, MALICIOUSNESSand DAMAGING; Newsome has taken the LIBERTY to GO PUBLIC and EXPOSEsuch CORRUPTION in the United States Government to thePUBLIC/WORLD/MEDIA at large. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 110 S.Ct. 2695 (1990) - Where statement of “opinion” on matter of public concern reasonably implies false and defamatory facts involving private figure, plaintiff must show that false implications were made with some level of fault to support recovery. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Paul proclaimed his innocence to . . . leaders. When is it wise to make a public response to false accusations, and when should we just let them go? In the case of Paul, the gospel would have been discredited if he had not spoken up. His circumstances made him look like a criminal, and he had no history with these leaders to expect them to assume otherwise without a proper defense. Page 18 of 113
  • If we have been publicly slandered by credible sources, we should probably make a public response. Otherwise our own witness will be compromised. . . Jesus warned us that some people will say all manner of evil against us falsely, so we should not be surprised when it happens. But we do need to exercise wisdom when we become aware of it.15 16. Newsome believes it is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE importance for citizens to see how President Barack Obama, his Administration and others who CONSPIRE with them have gone to great lengths to destroy Newsome’s CHARACTER, REPUTATION, INTEGRITY. Moreover, the life of one who is: a) Mississippi State Champion in Track & Field; b) Has Ranked Amongst the United States Elite Athletes; c) Who’s Who Among American High School Students; d) All-American; e) Olympic Trials Qualifier/Participant, etc. f) Member on One of the Fastest 4 x 400 Relay Teams in the Nation consisted of one of the United States Top American Sportscasters – Pamela Oliver (i.e. now currently with Fox Sports – covered some of the 2011 Super Bowl Interviews with Football Players). See EXHIBITS “45” and “46” respectively. Newsome also provides a web link Honoring such successes of this Florida A&M University Relay Team http://web.me.com/bradwellh/1984_All_Americans/Welcome.html g) Having the Privilege of Attending Mississippi Valley State University During the Time One of the Top National Football League’s “Wide Receiver” – Jerry Rice – Era. See EXHIBIT “47” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. h) Acknowledgement of Newsome’s work Ethics and Character with statements such as: This letter is to confirm and recommend Ms. Vogel Newsome to a position of Executive Assistant, Administrative Assistant or greater. While working with Lash Marine, she performed the duties of Executive Assistant with skill and 15 2009-2010 Standard Lesson Commentary (King James Version) - August 29, 2010 Lesson Entitled: “Upheld By God” -Subtitle: “Let’s Talk It Over.” Page 19 of 113
  • energy. Her spirit and motivation acted as a beacon of light toothers. Her leadership and training of others was a greatservice. Always willing to share; she possess a unique abilityto teach complex skills to the beginner and bring them quicklyup to speed. In addition, being a caring and concerned citizenshe put aside her time to train and work with Training, Inc.employees to develop their office skills for a better future.She is an asset and will be sorely missed at Lash Marine. - -ROBERT K. LANSDEN (VICE PRESIDENT) I have been very, very pleased with Vogel, not onlyin terms of her work product, but also in terms of her attitudeand personality. I would rate her as one of the best legalsecretaries with whom I have ever worked. I would highlyrecommend her to anyone who is looking for a full-time legalsecretary. If my previous secretary were not rejoining me, Iwould want Vogel to be my new permanent secretary. If anyone would care to discuss Vogel with me,please do not hesitate to give them my name and number. Iwill be more than happy to talk with them. I am not certain of the exact day when my previoussecretary will rejoin me. It could be immediately, or, it couldbe a couple of weeks. In light of that, we would like to requestthat we be allowed to continue to work with Vogel untilfurther notice. However, the last thing I want to do is haveVogel miss another good opportunity that might lead topermanent employment. Therefore, if she must be reassigned,I will understand, but grudgingly so.. . . - - RALPH B.GERMANY, JR. (ATTORNEY) I was first introduced to Ms. Newsome over five (5)years ago. Since that time, she has been a Woman of integrityand intelligence. Ms. Newsome always has presented herselfin a professional manner and has always addressed me andothers with the uttermost of respect. Ms. Newsome outgoingpersonality and personal strengths would make her anexcellent additional to anyone’s staff. I have had theopportunity to work with Ms. Newsome and she hasdemonstrated flexibility in working outside of her field ofendeavor and doing an excellent job is a strong indicator ofhow well she will do in her chosen field of endeavor. Ms.Newsome demonstrated a willingness to perform any taskassigned to her promptly and correctly with little supervision.Ms. Newsome is a very pleasant person to associate with,works as a team player, and would truly be an ASSET to yourorganization because she is the best one for the job. - - LISA J.WASHINGTON (COORDINATOR)June 16, 2005, Email Exchange Between Tommy Page andNewsome: Page: You looked very smart & professional as you walked toward the building! Page 20 of 113
  • Newsome: Why thank you. I strive to dress and carry myself in a manner in which PKH requires. Page: You do it well. See EXHIBIT “56” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein as well as Exhibit “93” of Newsome’s EM/ORS. 17. United States President Abraham Lincoln issued and executed anEXECUTIVE ORDER known as the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION on orabout January 1, 1863 – approximately 148 YEARS Ago – which ORDEREDthe FREEDOM of Slaves. Nevertheless, 148 years later, the United States still havethe likes of Respondents and those who conspire with them DETERMINED to takeNewsome and members of her class BACK into SLAVERY!!! However, asrecent NEWS has shown and FOREIGN NATIONS have PROVEN,the ERA of OPPRESSION by such TERRORIST/SUPREMACISTRegimes (i.e. as the United States) is OVER!!! - - SAY, “NOMORE!!” Foreign Nations/Citizens making it KNOWN they do NOT wantOUTSIDE interference from the United States – THANK GOD!!!!! How can aHYPOCRITICAL country like the United States minister to the needs of those whohave been OPPRESSED, ENSLAVED and in BONDAGE, when the United Statesitself engage in such CRIMINAL and CORRUPTION against its citizens. FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST – THANK GOD ALMIGHTY WE ARE FREE AT LAST!!!See how ELATED citizens in the Middle East are to be FREE and out ofBONDAGE, that many were willing to DIE (i.e. sacrifice their lives) rather thanremain ENSLAVED to a Terrorist/Supremacist regime. See EXHIBIT “14” –Photos of Citizens in the Middle East Celebrating their VICTORY attached heretoand incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. It may have only takenseeing the SUCCESS on November 2, 2010 in the United States and theencouragement from a Computer Website Executive, to take up the MANTLE andLEAD/ORGANIZE the TAKE OVER!!! 18. Great SACRIFICES have been made by people such as“Whistleblower” Army Spc. Bradley Manning (“Manning”) - See EXHIBIT “15”attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein - who hasrisked his life to REPORT and EXPOSE the CORRUPTION and CRIMINAL/CIVILviolations of the United States because he want the PUBLIC to know the TRUTH!COURAGEOUS acts by a citizen it appears who could NOT look the other way andallow INJUSTICES, CORRUPTION and CRIMES to continue WITHOUT makingthe PUBLIC AWARE! CHINA is correct in SPEAKING out and Page 21 of 113
  • SHINING THE LIGHT on the United States and itsHYPROCRISY!!Newsome believes a reasonable mind may conclude thatbased upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusionscontained herein, that had taken his concerns to the propergovernment agency/authority, NOTHING would have beendone. Moreover, that to silence Manning and preventknowledge of the United States role in CORRUPTION andCOVER-UPS in criminal/civil wrongs may have had him“KILLED/MURDERED/ASSASSINATED.” 19. Great SACRIFICES have been made by people as WIKILEAKS’Julian Assange - See EXHIBIT “16” attached hereto and incorporated by referenceas if set forth in full herein - who has come under attacks for releasing suchCRITICAL, DAMAGING and PERTINENT information to the PUBLIC/WORLDregarding the United States CORRUPTION and COVER-UP of CRIMINAL/CIVILWRONGS. 20. There are approximately TWO United States President (i.e. AbrahamLincoln and John F. Kennedy) who were ASSASSINATED because of the likes ofRespondents, Obama Administration, etc. and others who did not want to moveFORWARD and INSISTED on keeping a RACE of people OPPRESSED and inBONDAGE! 21. PROMINATE Civil Rights Leaders (i.e. Medgar Evers, Malcolm X,Martin Luther King Jr.) were ASSASSINATED because of the likes of Respondents,Obama Administration, etc. and others who did not want to move FORWARD andINSISTED on keeping a RACE of people OPPRESSED and in BONDAGE! 22. As with Newsome, there are other African American women whohave come under attack for speaking out and/or exercising Rights secured under theConstitution and/or laws of the United States. For instance:a. In July 2010, Shirley Sherrod (“Sherrod”) was UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY removed from her job – i.e. Obama Administration requesting that she RESIGN. See EXHIBIT “17” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. It does NOT look good to the PUBLIC/WORLD when such attacks on Sherrod comes approximately 6 days AFTER Newsome’s July 13, 2010 email entitled, ““U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The Downfall/Doom of the Obama Administration – Corruption/Conspiracy/Cover- Up/Criminal Acts Made Public” - which was received by United States President Barack Obama and those in his Administration (i.e. like Shirley Page 22 of 113
  • Sherrod’s boss – Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack) – See EXHIBIT “18” – Excerpt of the July 13, 2010 email evidencing Thomas Vilsack as a RECIPIENT. Sherrod who is an ACTIVIST and a product of an HBCU (Historical Black College and University) – Albany State University. Newsome being an ACTIVIST and product of HBCU – Florida A&M University. b. In November 2010, Velma Hart was FIRED/TERMINATED/LAID OFF from her job as Chief Financial Officer for American Veterans AFTER being TELEVISED questioning President Obama stating for instance: “Quite frankly, I’m exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the man for change I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I’ve been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I’m one of those people and I’m waiting, sir, I’m waiting. I don’t feel it yet . . .” See EXHIBIT “19” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Newsome knew that based upon the MEDIA coverage, that Hart’s employment days were NUMBERED. Sure enough “acting TRUE to form” Hart may have been FIRED/TERMINATED/LAID OFF as a direct and proximate result of exercising her First Amendment Rights. c. Clearly under the Willie Lynch Practices one can see the concerns such OPPRESSORS had regarding the African-American/Black Woman. Such Oppressors thought that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. was a problem/threat so the United States Government was pleased with such Civil Rights Leaders’ assassinations. Now they are finding out that Newsome and a number of other African-American/Black women are NOT remaining silent and giving into the WILLIE LYNCH practices. 23. Newsome uses not only her own PERSONAL experiences but those of citizens such as “Carl Brandon” and “Omar Thornton” who were targeted and subjected to DISCRIMINATORY practices and CONSPIRACIES for purposes of forcing and driving them to commit criminal acts – See EXHIBITS “20” (Carl Brandon) and “21” (Omar Thornton)16 attached hereto and incorporated by reference 16 http://www.omaha.com/article/20100803/NEWS/708039865/1031; http://www.examiner.com/x-48240-NY-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2010m8d8-Possibility-that-Omar-Thornton-did-not-act-alone Using the following excerpts: Some people don’t want to discuss racism as being a form of violence because it would reveal that they themselves are in factextremely violent and in denial about it. Omar Thornton’s incident has a host of websites spewing hate talk toward African-Americans. Hartford Distributors mayhave used racism and gradually managed to kill Omar Thornton mentally and emotionally before the killing spree via attrition. JessicaAnne Brocuglio, an ex-girlfriend of Omar Thornton, comes forward with character evidence: He always felt like he was being discriminated (against) because he was black[.]” “Basically they wouldn’t give him payraises. He never felt like they accepted him as a hard working person.” Page 23 of 113
  • as if set forth in full herein. Newsome having gone PUBLIC and WORLDWIDE in showing how the “WILLIE LYNCH”17 practices are implemented by the likes of This statement corroborates with what Kristi Hannah, Omar Thornton’s fiancée before his death, had been telling theManchester Police Department about Hartford Distributors treating him like a persona non grata. Plus, a fellow co-worker who was employed with Omar Thornton at Hartford Distributors has come forward stating that hehad seen the racist taunts: “Stuff on walls. Racist comments. I saw with my own eyes.” More importantly, the fellow co-worker saidMr. Thornton was hired as a truck driver; yet, he was assigned to loading boxes in the warehouse. Mr. Thornton had to fight to getbehind the wheel. The co-worker then states that Hartford Distributors are lying and the evidence is in Omar’s cell phone. Thesestatements are serious and they are not based upon speculation. This places the co-worker in a position to be called as a key witness toracism within Hartford Distributors. Although the co-worker is no longer under the employ of Hartford Distributors, he has witnessedthese incidents first-hand. These statements make it appear as if Hartford Distributors is deliberately being obtuse to shield themselvesfrom potential liability. As Marcellus said in William Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet,” “[s]omething is rotten in the state of Denmark.”Thus far, the answers provided by Hartford Distributors just rubs me the wrong way. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBNP73m9cp2g6qFtWxCbJH6IAD3gD9HEV71O0 But underneath, Thornton seethed with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage Tuesday inwhich the Connecticut man killed eight and wounded two others at his job at Hartford Distributors in Manchester before killing himself. "I know what pushed him over the edge was all the racial stuff that was happening at work," said his girlfriend, KristiHannah. Thornton, a black man, said as much in a chilling, four-minute 911 call. "You probably want to know the reason why I shot this place up," Thornton said in a recording released Thursday. "Thisplace is a racist place. Theyre treating me bad over here. And treat all other black employees bad over here, too. So I took it to myown hands and handled the problem. I wish I could have got more of the people." . . . One time Thornton had a confrontation with a white co-worker who used a racial slur against him, she said. Thornton changedjobs a few times because he was not getting raises, Brocuglio said. "Im sick of having to quit jobs and get another job because they cant accept me," she said he told her. . . . Brocuglios sister, Toni, said Thornton would come home and say co-workers called him racial slurs. He was also upset bycomments made by passers-by about the interracial couple, she said. "He just didnt understand why people had so much hatred in their lives," Toni Brocuglio said. . . . But Hannah said he showed her cell phone photos of racist graffiti in the bathroom at the beer company and overheard acompany official using a racial epithet in reference to him, but a union representative did not return his phone calls. Police said theyrecovered the phone and forensics experts would examine it. and Port Gibson Shooter (Carl Brandon) complained of: http://workplaceviolence.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html Apparently, the deadly shooting rampage was the culmination of years of anger and frustration over what the shooter believedto be false accusations of sexual harassment. "I dont know how you can consider me a danger. I was made a criminal through thesystem. . . http://www.topix.com/forum/city/port-gibson-ms/T0RUM1ECTB788O4HN “I would put Carl Brandon as a model from my town. I think he was one of the more intellegent and well manners persons inthe class. i cannot imagine this guy walking up one morning to decide that he want to destroy his life and others.” – Sarah Kelly(Chicago, IL) “Some time a person try to walk away from a problem, but there are people in this world that want let them do that. Thisman had left his job and move on, but that was not good enough. They had to call his job and tell them what happened 9 years ago,and got this man fired. I hate that he let the devil take over him at the time, but I do understand . . . I hope we can learn something fromthis tragedy.” – Shelly Jones (Nashville, TN) “He had lost his job because someone said he had harassed them. He lost his reputation and the respect of some. When hetried to move on some vindictive, vicious persons went to his next job and scandalized him. He fought through every legal avenueavailable to him and found no justice.” – Cassandra Cook Butler (AOL) 17 “In my bag here, I have a foolproof [sic] method of controlling your black slaves. I guarantee every one of you that ifinstalled correctly it will control the slaves for at least 300 years. . . Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. . . I use fear,distrust and envy for control. . . The Breaking Process of the African Woman Take the female and run a series of tests on her to see if she will submit to your desires willingly. TEST her in every way,because she is the most important factor for good economics. If she shows any sign of resistance in submitting completely to your will,do not hesitate to use the bull whip on her to extract the last bit of resistance out of her. Take care not to kill her, for in doing so, youspoil good economic. . . .” Page 24 of 113
  • Respondents for purposes of breaking down Newsome and those of her Race forpurposes of keeping them OPPRESSED, ENSLAVED and in BONDAGE!Moreover, to drive CITIZENS into committing criminal acts as a direct andproximate result of CONSPIRACIES involving racially motivated violations of thelaws. See EXHIBIT “22” – Willie Lynch document attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. So NO foreign citizens inthe MIDDLE EAST can clearly see from documentation andEVIDENCE provided them that the “Obama Administration” is aSHAM – i.e. CORRUPT as well as the United States JUDICIALSYSTEM. Clearly the United States can be NO role model in that it engages inCORRUPTION and the COVER-UP of discriminatory practices, human/civil rightsviolations, obstruction of justice, and other criminal/civil wrongs leveled againstAfrican-Americans and/or people of color. 24. It was IMPORTANT to Newsome that the PUBLIC/WORLD sawjust how the First ALLEDGED African-American President (Barack Obama)ABANDONED his Pastor Jeremiah Wright when EXCERPTS of his sermons (i.e.SIMILAR practice as that used on Shirley Sherrod) were taken OUT-OF-CONTEXT to makeWright appear as CRAZY, LUNATIC, and HOSTILE.Moreover, how the WHITE candidates (i.e. Hilary Clinton – now Secretary of Stateand Sarah Palin who was the Vice Presidential Candidate for Republican Party)wanted to paint Wright as a TERRORIST!! IMPORTANT TO NOTE: It was agood thing that Army Spc. Bradley Manning released information regarding theUnited States Government’s CORRUPTION and COVER-UP of crimes. Moreover,WikiLeaks sharing information with the WORLD – then the coming of a release of “U.S.: 1940s STDan Article on or about October 1, 2010, entitled,Experiments “Clearly Unethical” SUPPORTING the UnitedStates Government’s role in UNETHICAL practices – i.e. asthat of the Tuskegee Test which were INFLICTED onAfrican-American men. See EXHIBIT “23” - “U.S.: 1940s STDExperiments “Clearly Unethical” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as ifset forth in full herein. So while the United States was trying to portray the preacher(Jeremiah Wright) as being CRAZY, TERRORIST, etc. and taking EXCERPTS fromsermons to DECEIVE the Nation – LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!!! The TRUTH issurfacing and being released to the PUBLIC/WORLD as with that provided byWikiLeaks. 25. While President Obama and his Administration are attempting tomake it APPEAR that they were for the citizens of Egypt and other Foreign Nationstaking back their Government, they were NOT. President Obama and hisAdministration CLEARLY are in FEAR now because they realize that the NEWForeign Governments being established by those who have been OPPRESSED,ENSLAVED and in BONDAGE for DECADES (i.e. some over 40 Years) will NOT Page 25 of 113
  • allow the United States to DICTATE and continue to use their POWER toTERRORIZE them as they have done to Newsome and others that SPEAK OUT andEXPOSE CORRUPTION, INJUSTICES, RACISM, DISCRIMINATION, etc.Newsome believes it is President Obama’s time to take his OWN advice: STEP DOWN FROM OFFICE – i.e. in that he has known of the CORRUPTION and COVER-UP of crimes and civil wrongs leveled not only against Newsome but those of other citizens of the United States that were TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY brought to his attention; however, made a CONSCIOUS and WILLING decision to look the other way. Leaving to question as with IMPEACHED President Nixon – WHAT did President Barack Obama know and WHEN did he know it? Newsome believesit is time for President Obama and his TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST Regime to LEAVE the White House. Therefore, Newsome has INITIATED the appropriate legal action(s) – Petition for EXTRAORDINARY WRIT with the Supreme Court of the United States for the CORRECTION and EXPOSURE of practices OUTLAWED HUNDREDS of Years Ago. 26. President Obama’s/United States Government’s RECENTLY comingout and speaking out as though they were for the citizens in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen,Syria, Libya, etc. and other Foreign citizens taking ON/BACK their government is aFARCE and the Foreign Citizens/Leaders know it. ForeignLeaders/Media/Citizens may be aware of the attacks on Newsome because she hasreleased information to be shared as to the OPPRESSIVE and ENSLAVEMENTpractices of the United States Government, employers and those who have conspiredwith them to destroy her life. For instance leaders in EGYPT knew thatplacing President Obama in the White House was a FRONT and merelyDECEPTIVE acts to mislead Foreign Countries, their Leaders andCitizens: Muhammad Habib, first deputy to the general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: He said “the US Administration employs all cards to serve its own interests.” that the speech that Obama intends to deliver in Egypt is “of no value.” He added: “Statements and speeches must be associated with, or preceded by real change in policy on the ground, because policy is judged by deeds, not words.”See EXHIBIT “24”“EGYPT’S Opposition Leaders Sound Off On -Upcoming Obama Visit” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if setforth in full herein. As well as the following information at: Page 26 of 113
  • http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/06/03/v-print/69398/obama-to-lay- out-vision-of-muslim.html . . . Bin Laden said that Obamas approach to the Muslim world was no different from that of Bush18, whose policies — from the invasion of Iraq to the use of some interrogation methods widely considered torture — convinced many Muslims that the United States had launched a war on Islam. . . However, Gamal Eid, the head of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, said he planned to decline the invitation. The Israeli ambassador to he didnt want to be in the same Egypt also is invited, and Eid said room as a representative of what he called a "criminal" government. See EXHIBIT “25” – “Obama to Lay Out Vision of Muslim’s World’s Future” Article attached hereto and incorporated by reference. ALL FOR POLITICAL/POLL POINTS - - With ALL the Government INTELLIGENCE the United States has, how CONVENIENT it was that Bin Laden has been killed – 4 days AFTER President Obama releases his ALLEDGED Birth Certificate. See EXHIBIT “6” at the 16th Page. President Obama TAKING CREDIT for ordering Bin Laden’s death. LOOK AT THE TIMING of this News!!!! 27. This Court has retained copies of the PFEW in this action as well as the $300 Filing Fee submitted. Newsome being a paying litigant in that it appeared to her that this Court may have attempted to try and get her to come before it in the “In Forma Pauperis” (“IFP”) status to avoid having to address the issues presented therein – i.e. in that IFP pleadings/filings do NOT appear to be subject to the same standard of review as that of PAYING litigants. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993 (1989) Jessie McDonald may well have abused his right to file petitions in this Court without payment of the docketing fee; the Courts order documents that fact. I do not agree, however, that he poses such a threat to the orderly administration of justice that we should embark on the unprecedented and dangerous course the Court charts today. . . . I am most concerned, however, that if, as I fear, we continue on the course we chart today, we will end by closing our doors to a litigant with a meritorious claim. It is rare, but it does happen on occasion that we grant review and even decide in favor of a litigant who previously had presented multiple unsuccessful*188 petitions on the same issue. See, e.g., Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957); see id., at 173-177, 77 S.Ct. at 1136-1138 (Douglas, J., dissenting). "Petitioner is no stranger to us. Since 1971, he has made 73 separate filings with the Court, not including this petition, which is his eighth so far this Term. These include 4 appeals, 33 petitions for certiorari, 99 petitions for extraordinary writs, 7 applications for stay and other injunctive relief, and 10 petitions for rehearing." Id. pp. 994- 995. 18 PUBLIC/WORLD needs to know because President Obama may be relying upon the advice of the same counsel and/oradvisors used by President Bush. Page 27 of 113
  • "But paupers filing pro se petitions are not subject to the financial considerations - filing fees and attorneys fees - that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions." Id. p. 996. The Supreme Court (even after all of McDonalds filings) did not close the door to McDonald. A litigant who is identified as filing 73 separate filings in a one-year period; however, ruled, "Petitioner remains free under the present order to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ, if he qualifies under the Courts Rule 46 and does not similarly abuse that privilege." Id. p. 996. 28. The EMERGENCY relief sought through EM/ORS and PFEW is thatwhich is required to deter and mitigate damages sustained by Newsome. Moreover,is relief that should have been sought by the appropriate Government Agency(s) towhich matters were brought; however, failed to perform ministerial duties owedNewsome in RETALIATION of her having brought legal action and/or knowledge ofher engagement in protected activities – i.e. active role in conspiracy(s) leveledagainst Newsome. 29. Newsome would be prejudiced by this action should this Court denyher EQUAL protection of the laws, EQUAL privileges and immunities of the lawsand DUE PROCESS of laws in the handling of this instant RT031711&042711SCLto which it supports the PFEW and EM/ORS submitted to the attention of this Courtfor filing. Therefore, this instant RT031711&042711SCL is being filed to preservethe rights, arguments and defenses asserted by Newsome under the statutes/lawsgoverning said matters. 30. For the sake from having to reargue issues/arguments/defenses andlegal conclusions, Newsome incorporates by reference “PFEW” and “EM/ORS” aswell as their supporting Appendices/Exhibits submitted to the Supreme Court of theUnited States for filing. 31. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsprovided herein as well as in “PFEW” and “EM/ORS” will sustain that the SupremeCourt of the United States MUST take jurisdiction in this matter; CANNOT pass it bybecause it may be doubtful; MUST decide the issues/questions presented before thisCourt; and CANNOT decline the exercise of jurisdiction to which Newsome isentitled: Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 165, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) - [HN1] The United States Supreme Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it MUST take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary CANNOT, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. The court CANNOT pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, the court MUST decide it, if it is brought before it. The court has NO more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be TREASON to the Constitution. Questions may occur which the court would gladly avoid, but the court CANNOT avoid them. All the court can do is to exercise its best judgment, and conscientiously perform its duty. Page 28 of 113
  • for to do so would be TREASON to the Constitution. Therefore, Newsome seeks this Court’s addressing issues/questions presented it and to perform the duties owed her as well as the citizens of the United States. I. ALL WRITS ACT Newsome hopes that the Supreme Court of the United States understands that due to theEXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances involved in thiscase, this instant RT031711&042711SCL is necessary in response its March 17, 2011 letter to her.Newsome hopes that there is sufficient and adequate information contained herein as well as inEM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices to end concerns of what she believes maybe DILATORY practices by this Court in light of the DAMAGING information contained hereinwhich actually has LED back to its DOORSTEPS due to its FAILURE to act when Newsome firstbegan coming to this Court to address such HIDEOUS criminal behavior and civil violations. Due tothe extenuating factors involved and the impact such crimes/civil wrongs have had not only onNewsome but the PUBLIC/WORLD at large, she request that her Petition for Extraordinary Writ befiled and this Court issue the required legal process on Respondents. Newsome believes that there issufficient Respondent information – i.e. names, addresses, etc. - available in this EM/ORS, PFEWand their supporting Exhibits/Appendices to move forward. Even if not, this Court has the properlegal tools and resources to retain information to avoid any further delays in the PROSECUTION andADMINISTRATION of justice. 28 USC § 1651 Writs: (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue ALL writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. Section 376 provided: “. . . The Supreme Court. . . shall have power to issue ALL writs NOT specifically provided for by statute, which may be NECESSARY for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Ex parte Fahey, 67 S.Ct. 1558 (1947) - United States Supreme Court has power to issue extraordinary writs . . .but such Page 29 of 113
  • remedies should be resorted to only where appeal is clearly inadequate, and they are reserved for really extraordinary causes. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition): All Writs Act – A federal statute that gives the U.S. Supreme Court and all courts established by Congress the power to issue writs in aid of their jurisdiction and in conformity with the usages and principles of law. Black’s Law Dictionary – Second Pocket Edition: Writ: A court’s written order, in the name of a state or other competent legal authority, commanding the addressee to do or refrain from doing some specified act. Extraordinary Writ: A writ issued by a court exercising unusual or discretionary power. Original Writ: A writ commencing an action and directing the defendant to appear and answer. U.S. v. Denedo, 129 S.Ct. 2213 (U.S.,2009) - Under the All Writs Act, a courts power to issue any form of relief, extraordinary or otherwise, is contingent on that courts subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comn, 125 S.Ct. 2 (U.S.,2004) - Authority granted to courts under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist, sitting as single Justice.) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comn, 125 S.Ct. 2 (U.S.,2004) - Authority granted to courts under the All Writs Act is appropriately exercised only: (1) when necessary or appropriate in aid of courts jurisdiction; and (2) when legal rights at issue are indisputably clear. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist, sitting as single Justice.) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that in compliance with the March 17, 2011 Letter issued by thisCourt, and in furtherance of claims addressed in EM/ORS, PFEW and subsequent filings to saidpleadings, Newsome states: 32. Her concerns as to what she believes to be this Court’s attempt to MISLEAD her and/or MISGUIDE her into thinking that the ONLY type of Extraordinary Writs this Court will address are: extraordinary writ of mandamus, mandamus/prohibition, habeas corpus – when it IS NOT!! 33. Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude that the EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices clearly supports and provides this Court with ADEQUATE and SUFFICIENT information that it could have concluded that Newsome seeks to bring legal actions under the “ALL WRITS ACT” and/or applicable statutes/laws governing claims addressed in EM/ORS and Page 30 of 113
  • PFEW. Furthermore, based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions, thisCourt having the DUTY and OBLIGATION to correct any/all miscarriage of justicereported through this action and/or known to it. 34. Based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusion provided inNewsome’s EM/ORS and PFEW, she seeks legal relief under the All Writs Act andany/all applicable statutes/laws to correct legal wrongs addressed and/or known tothis Court which may include the following (i.e. however, is not limited to saidlisting): a. Original Writ b. Writ of Conspiracy c. Writ of Course d. Writ of Detinue e. Writ of Entry f. Writ of Exigi Facias g. Writ of Formedon h. Writ of Injunction i. Writ of Mandamus j. Writ of Possession k. Writ of Praecipe l. Writ of Protection m. Writ of Recaption n. Writ of Prohibition o. Writ of Review p. Writ of Supersedeas q. Writ of SUPERVISORY CONTROL r. Writ of Securitate Pacis s. Extraterritorial Writs Page 31 of 113
  • 35. Newsome believes based upon the facts, evidence and legalconclusions, that the record evidence will sustain that CRITICAL and EXIGENTcircumstances exist to support her EM/ORS and PFEW; moreover, relief under the“All Writs Act.” Furthermore, Newsome’s EM/ORS and PFEW sets forth evidenceand facts that authority under the “All Writs Act” is warranted to aid in this Court’sJurisdiction and that the Legal Rights at ISSUE are INDISPUTABLY clear. Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Com’n, 125 S.Ct. 2, 542 U.S. 1305, 159 L.Ed.2d 805 (2004) – Authority granted to courts under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most CRITICAL and EXIGENT circumstances (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist). Authority granted under the All Rights Act is appropriately exercised only: (1) when necessary or appropriate to aid in court’s jurisdiction; and (2) when legal rights at ISSUE are INDISPUTABLY clear. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist). Id. 36. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsprovided in EM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices willsustain that the Writs sought as well as other applicable relief KNOWN to this Courtto correct the legal wrongs reported will sustain LEGISLATIVELY approved sourcesof PROCEDURAL INSTRUMENTS designed to achieve RATIONAL ends of lawand may be used by this Court in ISSUING the APPROPRIATE Orders to assist it inconducting FACTUAL INQUIRIES/INVESTIGATIONS into the Issues/Claims setforth in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices. Harris v. Nelson, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 394 U.S. 286, 22 L.Ed.2d 281, rehearing denied 89 S.Ct. 1623, 394 U.S. 1025, 23 L.Ed. 50 (1969) – All Writs Act serves as LEGISLATIVELY approved source of procedural instruments designed to achieve rational ends of law and may be relied on by courts in issuing order appropriate to ASSIST them in CONDUCTING FACTUAL INQUIRIES. 37. The Supreme Court of the United States have statutory authority aswell as inherent power to execute the applicable Orders that are necessary toCORRECT the legal wrongs/injustices and prevent interference/obstruction of justiceto the implementation of said Orders sought. U.S. v. Wallace, 218 F.Supp. 290 (1963) – The courts of the United States have statutory authority as well as inherent power to enter such orders as may be necessary to effectuate their lawful decrees and to prevent interference with, and obstruction to, their implementation. 38. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionprovided in the EM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices willsustain that this matter is of “PUBLIC IMPORTANCE” and is ofPUBLIC/NATIONAL security in that it supports the COVER-UP of Respondents,President Barack Obama, his Administration and the United States Government ofCORRUPTION, CRIMINAL/CIVIL VIOLATIONS and TERRORIST/RACIST/SUPREMACIST practices. Furthermore, the record evidence will SUPPORT aWILLFUL disregard of legislative policy, rules of the Supreme Court of the United Page 32 of 113
  • States, which are a DIRECT and PROXIMATE RESULT of the SERIOUSHARDSHIP and LEGAL INJUSTICES leveled against Newsome, members of herclass and/or citizens of the United States. This instant action has been brought seeking the filing of ORIGINALACTION and issuance of EXTRAORDINARY WRITS because of the extraordinarycircumstances sustained by the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in theEM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices – for purposes ofconfining the inferior courts and Administrative Agency(s) addressed, to the lawfulexercise of their prescribed jurisdiction and to compel them to exercise authorityMANDATORILY required and GOVERNED by statutes/laws. Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.Ed 728, 135 U.S. App.Dc. 160 on remand 259 A.2d 592 (1969) – Among the factors to be considered in determining whether prerogative writs should issue are whether the matter is of “PUBLIC IMPORTANCE,” whether the policy against piecemeal appeals would be frustrated, whether there has been a WILLFUL disregard of legislative policy, or of rules of the higher court, and whether refusal to issue the writ may work a serious hardship on the parties. Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84 S.Ct. 769, 376 U.S. 240, 11 L.Ed.2d 674 (1964) – Extraordinary writs are reserved for really extraordinary causes, and then only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or compel it to exercise its authority when it is duty to do so. 39. Newsome seeks any and all applicable relief KNOWN to the SupremeCourt of the United States to correct the injustices/miscarriages of justice addressedherein as well as in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices.Newsome believes that the record evidence will further support Orders entered byjudges with KNOWLEDGE that they lacked jurisdiction to act in legalaction/lawsuit. Anderson v. McLaughlin, 263 F.2d 723 (1959) – (n.2) Authority conferred by statute authorizing courts to issue ALL writs necessary is NOT confined to issuance of writs in aid of jurisdiction already acquired by appeal but extends to those cases which are within court’s appellate jurisdiction although NO appeal has yet been perfected. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S.21, 25, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185. (n. 3) Extraordinary writs authorized to be issued by courts established by Act of Congress should be issued only under unique and compelling circumstances. De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1130, 325 U.S. 212, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945) - . . . petitioners applied to this court for certiorari under § 262. That section provides in part: “The Supreme Court. . . shall have power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” . . . When Congress withholds interlocutory reviews, § 262 can, of course be availed to correct a mere error in the exercise of Page 33 of 113
  • conceded judicial power. But when a court has no judicial power to do what it purports to do – when its action is not mere error or usurpation of power – the situation falls precisely within the allowable use of § 262. We proceed, therefore, to inquire whether the . . . Court is empowered to enter the order under attack. Also see, 80th Congress House Report No. 308. 40. Newsome believes it is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest forcitizens to see just how the courts in the United States operate and COVER-UP theCORRUPTION of the United States Government/Government Officials, BIGcorporations, BIG law firms, BIG insurance companies, SPECIAL INTERESTgroups, their lobbyists, etc. who engage in criminal/civil wrongs leveled againstcitizens such as Newsome who OPPOSE such unlawful/illegal/unethical practices asthat raised and addressed in EM/ORS, PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices.In fact, it is IMPORTANT for the PUBLIC/WORLD to see just how far the UnitedStates Government, WHITE employers, their lawyers, their insurance companies, etc.will go to POST FALSE, MALICIOUS and MISLEADING information known to bereceived through criminal acts on the INTERNET for purposes of destroyingcitizens’ (i.e. such as Newsome) lives. See EXHIBIT “26” – Google Informationregarding Newsome attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth infull herein. Furthermore, how the Government and WHITE employers engage incriminal/civil wrongs against citizens (i.e. such as Newsome) to see that the “DOORSOF THE COURTS” are closed to citizens who have VALID and MERITABLEclaims. Either engaging and/or condoning the criminal acts of judges/justices whoAID and ABET in the COVER-UP of CORRUPTION and CRIMINAL behavior. InNewsome case, the United States Government and White employers CONSPIRED toplace information on the INTERNET they knew to be FALSE, MALICIOUS andMISLEADING for purposes of having Newsome BLACKLISTED/BLACKBALLED and creating situation to see that Newsome is NEVER employablein EFFORTS of keeping the CRIMINAL/TERRORIST/ RACIST/SUPREMACISTpractices of WHITE employers OUT of the eyes/knowledge of CITIZENS and/orPUBLIC/WORLD. Weber v. Henderson, 275 F.Supp.2d 616 (2003) – Postal employee who filed fifteen lawsuits in nine years against United States Postal Service (USPS), stemming from his removal from full-service carrier duty, failed to raise claims in any action relating to events at issue that were neither meritless nor frivolous, and thus any further pro se pleadings submitted by employee on same basis would be PROPERLY reviewed under ALL WRITS ACT . . . In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993 (1989) Jessie McDonald may well have abused his right to file petitions in this Court without payment of the docketing fee; the Courts order documents that fact. I do not agree, however, that he poses such a threat to the orderly administration of justice that we should embark on the unprecedented and dangerous course the Court charts today. . . . I am most concerned, however, that if, as I fear, we continue on the course we chart today, we will end by closing our doors to a litigant with a meritorious claim. It is rare, but it does happen on occasion that we grant review and even decide in favor of a litigant who previously had presented multiple Page 34 of 113
  • unsuccessful*188 petitions on the same issue. See, e.g., Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957); see id., at 173-177, 77 S.Ct. at 1136-1138 (Douglas, J., dissenting). "Petitioner is no stranger to us. Since 1971, he has made 73 separate filings with the Court, not including this petition, which is his eighth so far this Term. These include 4 appeals, 33 petitions for certiorari, 99 petitions for extraordinary writs, 7 applications for stay and other injunctive relief, and 10 petitions for rehearing." Id. pp. 994- 995. "But paupers filing pro se petitions are not subject to the financial considerations - filing fees and attorneys fees - that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions." Id. p. 996. The Supreme Court (even after all of McDonalds filings) did not close the door to McDonald. A litigant who is identified as filing 73 separate filings in a one-year period; however, ruled, "Petitioner remains free under the present order to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ, if he qualifies under the Courts Rule 46 and does not similarly abuse that privilege." Id. p. 996.Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude, that based upon the facts,evidenced and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW, and their supportingExhibits/Appendices, that the role the Respondents, United States Government,courts, WHITE employers, etc. played in the posting of PROTECTED ACTIVITIESinvolving Newsome on the INTERNET – see EXHIBIT “26” – Internet informationregarding PROTECTED ACTIVITIES involving Newsome which was posted forunlawful/illegal/unethical/malicious/willful intent attached hereto and incorporatedby reference as if set forth in full herein. 41. Newsome believes that the record will sustain that the facts, evidenceand legal conclusions set forth in EM/ORS and PFEW and their supportingExhibits/Appendices will sustain that RELIEF under the “All Writs Act” will sustainthat there “are persons/parties, though not parties to original action” - such as: (a)United States President Barack Obama and members of his Administration, lawyers,advisors, etc.; (b) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC (“BakerDonelson”) their client (LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY); (c) andothers that may be identified through FACTUAL inquiries/INVESTIGATIONS thatengaged in CONSPIRACIES and criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome –that RELY upon their DOMINENT/PROMINENT positions to INFLUENCE andFRUSTRATE the implementation of the laws, OBSTRUCT the administration ofjustice, and implementation of Orders issued by this Court. Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171 (1996) – Power conferred by All Writs Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to original action . . . are in position to frustrate implementation of court order or proper administration of justice. U.S. v. New York Tel. Co., 98 S.Ct. 364, 434 U.S. 159, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 – Power conferred by this section extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who though not parties to original action . . . are in position to frustrate implementation of court order or proper Page 35 of 113
  • administration of justice and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice. U.S. v. International Broth. Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, 911 F.Supp. 743 (1996) – Important feature of All Writs Act is its grant of authority to enjoin and bind nonparties to action when needed to preserve court’s ability to reach or enforce its decision in case over which it has proper jurisdiction. Mongelli v. Mongelli, 849 F.Supp. 215 (1994) - Under All Writs Act, federal courts has authority to issue commands as necessary to effectuate orders it has previously issued and extends to persons who were not parties to original action but are in position to frustrate implementation of court order.Moreover, it is of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE for the CITIZENS/WORLD to see theTerrorist/Supremacist/Racist Regime that may be running the United StatesGovernment – Baker Donelson - and the positions it holds/held in the Governmentfor purposes of exposing how ONE law firm has been ALLOWED to infiltrate theUnited States Government for PROMOTING its RACIST/DISCRIMINATORY/SUPREMACIST ideas over their victims such as Newsome, other citizens andForeign Countries/Leaders: Chief of Staff to the President of the United States United States Secretary of State United States Senate Majority Leader Members of the United States Senate Members of the United States House of Representatives Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control for United States Department of Treasury Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Chief Counsel, Acting Director, and Acting Deputy Director of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services within the United States Department of Homeland Security Majority and Minority Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Member of United States President’s Domestic Policy Council Counselor to the Deputy Secretary for the United States Department of HHS Chief of Staff of the Supreme Court of the United States Page 36 of 113
  • Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the United States Deputy under Secretary of International Trade for the United States Department of Commerce Ambassador to Japan Ambassador to Turkey Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman Governor of Tennessee Governor of Mississippi Deputy Governor and Chief of Staff for the Governor of Tennessee Commissioner of Finance & Administration (Chief Operating Officer) - State of Tennessee Special Counselor to the Governor of Virginia United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge United States District Court Judges United States Attorneys Presidents of State and Local Bar AssociationsEMPHASIS ADDED in that this information is pertinent to establish - “though notparties to original action . . .are in position to frustrate implementation of courtorder or proper administration of justice” - the CONSPIRACY and PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled against Newsome out of which this instant reliefis sought. This information was originally located at: http://www.martindale.com/Baker-Donelson-Bearman-Caldwell/law-firm- 307399.htmsee attached at EXHIBIT “10” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as ifset forth in full herein. It is such information which had been posted for severalyears. See APPENDIX “27” listing pulled approximately September 11, 2004.However, when Newsome went PUBLIC and released this information, BakerDonelson moved SWIFTLY for DAMAGE-CONTROL purposes and SCRUBBEDthis information from the Internet. It is a GOOD THING NEWSOME RETAINEDHARD COPIES so that the PUBLIC/WORLD can see COVER-UP andCOWARDLY tactics of one of the most Powerful Leaders (BarackObama)/Countries (United States) attempting to HIDE/MASK their CRIMES/CIVILWRONGS leveled against Newsome, members of her class and/or citizens of theUnited States. 42. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsprovided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will furthersustain that prior to bringing this matter before the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, that Newsome first sought administrative and/or judicial relief first. To NO Page 37 of 113
  • avail. Furthermore, that based upon the EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL andCRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances involved that any such claims and/or defensessuch as “other remedies available” to Newsome will further prove FRUITLESSand/or FRIVOLOUS because of the KEY/HIGH positions that Respondents hold andtheir use of said positions to INFLUENCE the outcome of legal matters. Therefore,in efforts to seek justice for the PATTERN-OF-MISCARRIAGE-OF-JUSTICE,PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE, PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL-BEHAVIOR, etc. leveledagainst Newsome, she knew it was IMPERATIVE to submit her EM/ORS to put onDISPLAY and PRESENT/EXPOSE to the PUBLIC/WORLD how the judicialprocess works AGAINST citizens (i.e. such as Newsome) who in GOOD FAITHbring legal actions through proper legal recourse and is REJECTED andSUBJECTED to criminal/civil wrongs in RETALIATION for exercising rightssecured/guaranteed under the Constitution, Civil/Human Rights Act, and otherlaws of the United States. Harris v. Nelson, 89 S.Ct. 1082 (1969) - All Writs Act serves as legislatively approved source of procedural instruments designed to achieve rational ends of law and may be relied on by courts in issuing orders appropriate to assist them in conducting factual inquiries. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651. All Writs Act serves as legislatively approved source of procedural instruments designed to achieve rational ends of law and may be relied on by courts in issuing orders appropriate to assist them in conducting factual inquiries. Id. 43. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions set forth in Newsome’sEM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will further sustain thatbased upon the FACTS, EVIDENCE and RULES of this Court that some of theRespondents involved in this matter may include STATES, COUNTIES,MUNICIPALITIES, etc. which warrants this Court’s ORIGINAL jurisdiction. U.S. v. Hayman, 72 S.Ct. 263 (1952) - In determining what auxiliary writs are "agreeable to usages and principles of law within purview of judicial code provision authorizing federal court to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to usages and principles of law, court must look first to common law. 44. Newsome further believes that given the facts, evidence and legalconclusions presented to this Court in her EM/ORS, PFEW, their supportingExhibits/Appendices, MALICIOUS and CRIMINAL acts in placing PROTECTEDinformation on the INTERNET, and what may be DILATORY practices of this Courtin the handling of this matter thus far, that a reasonable mind may conclude that theremay have been SUFFICIENT and ADEQUATE information provided this Courtalready to aid in its jurisdiction and handling of this matter; rather than rely uponwhat may be seen as dilatory tactics to AID and ABET Respondents (i.e. who basedon established relationships have engaged in CONSPIRACIES and the COVER-UPof same) in the FURTHERANCE of their criminal/civil violations leveled againstNewsome. As a matter of law the Supreme Court of the United States has a DUTYto correct the miscarriage of justices made known to it through any/all legal means Page 38 of 113
  • known to it. Newsome need NOT be specific because this Court has VAST legal resources and KNOWLEDGE and/or the TOOLS TO OBTAIN SUCH KNOWLEDGE in how to handle the EXTRAORDINRY, EXCEPTION and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances brought to its attention by Newsome. Adams v. U.S. ex rel. McCann, 63 S.Ct. 236 (1942) - Unless appropriately confined by Congress, a federal court may avail itself of all auxiliary writs as aids in performance of its duties, when the use of such historic aids is calculated in its sound judgment to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it. Ex parte Milwaukee R. Co., 72 U.S. 188 (1866) - Where a case is properly in the Supreme Court . . ., the Supreme Court has a right under Judiciary Act § 14, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651, to issue any writ which may be necessary to render their . . . jurisdiction effectual. Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84 S.Ct. 769 (1964) - Extraordinary writs are reserved for really extraordinary causes, and then only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). See also 42 USC § 1986: Action for neglect to prevent.19 45. Newsome believes that there is sufficient evidence to further sustain that those among Respondents may be the United States, States, Counties, Municipalities, etc.; moreover their state/government officials in which ORDERS/JUDGMENTS deterring/prohibiting/precluding/preventing present and future unlawful/illegal/unethical behavior Riggs v. Johnson County, 73 U.S. 166 (1867) - Under section 14 of the judiciary act, authorizing the issue of “other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdiction,” . . . courts may issue a mandamus to a state officer. 46. Newsome is CONFIDENT that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in her EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that this legal matter that she has brought before the Supreme Court of the United States is one of EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances. Furthermore, will sustain a CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION, USURPATION OF JUDICIAL POWER/AUTHORITY, LACK OF JURISDICTION in lower court actions to act, etc. Moreover, a REPEAT Pattern-Of-Such-Abuses/Usurpation because Respondents PLACED THEMSELVES ABOVE THE STATUTES and LAWS of the United States and thought they were INVINCIBLE!!! However, like the MAJORITY of career criminals (i.e. as Respondents) they commit way too many crimes and through their ARROGANCE and 19 Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of thistitle, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so todo, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by suchwrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on thecase; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; . . . Page 39 of 113
  • PRIDE they eventually commit one crime to many and slip up which eventually leads to their DEMISE as in this instant legal action. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 74 S.Ct. 145(1953) - The supplementary review power conferred on courts by Congress in the All Writs Act is meant to be used only in the exceptional case where there is a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. 28 U.S.C.A. s 1651(a). II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in the EM/ORS,PFEW and their Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that, as a matter of law, Newsome is entitled toFindings of Fact/Conclusion of Law that Courts and/or Administrative Agencies relied upon to reachtheir rulings/decisions. Furthermore, that Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELYprovided her demands for Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Laws in WRITING and through theapplicable legal processes – to NO avail. Therefore, sustaining the relief sought through this instantlegal action before the Supreme Court of the United States. 47. Newsome is CONFIDENT that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions in the lower courts’ and administrative agencies’ records will SUSTAIN timely requests for Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Laws for any decisions Respondents may alleged was rendered. However, to date, Newsome has NOT received Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Laws requested. Thus, clearly SUPPORTING courts and/or administrative agencies depriving Newsome EQUAL protection of the laws, EQUAL privileges and immunities and DUE PROCESS of laws secured/guaranteed to her under the Constitution and other laws of the United States. Ben David v. Travisono, 495 F.2d 562 (1974) – Whether proceeding under this section or not, . . .court has NO license to ignore REQUIREMENT that it LET PARTIES and appellate court KNOW WHY IT ACTS, and on what FACTUAL BASIS. (n.1) . . . The latter incorporate the common sense rule that a court should let the parties and . . . court know why it acts, and on what factual basis. United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 84 S.Ct. 639, 11 L.Ed.2d 629 (1964). Whether proceeding under the All Writs Act or not, . . . court has NO license to ignore that requirement. Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 177 n.4, 94 S.Ct. 414, 422 n.4, 38 L.Ed. 388 (1973). (n.4) Those enjoined are ENTITLED to be TOLD PRECISELY what conduct is outlawed. Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 94 S.Ct. 713, 715, 35 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974). Page 40 of 113
  • 48. Newsome is confident that the Supreme Court of the United States’ inquires and/or investigations into the Judicial and Administrative proceedings brought by Newsome will support that NEITHER organization will have facts, evidence or legal conclusions to REBUT Newsome’s claims, evidence and case laws provided and there is NOTHING to sustain organizations’ decisions. Though Newsome requested Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Laws to sustain courts’/administrations’ actions, ALL FAILED to produce Newsome with Findings of Fact and the Conclusion of Laws relied upon to reach their decision. American Propeller & Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., 57 S.Ct. 521 (U.S.,1937) - Findings should be examined in light of pleadings to determine scope of findings. 49. Newsome further believes that while she was laughed and mocked at for being so thorough, detailed and presented pleadings considered voluminous, she in GOOD FAITH prepared pleadings for purposes of PRESERVING the claims and issues presented for review by this Court. Furthermore, Newsome knew that Respondents’ INABILITY to defend against her claims/legal actions were also the reason they did their best to STEER CLEAR of addressing the claims and issues raised. Nevertheless, Newsome remained focused and did not embark and engage in the RAMBLINGS of such criminals and responded with the applicable pleadings to PRESERVE and SUPPORT claims/issues raised and the TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATE submission thereof for review. Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 105 S.Ct. 1713 (1985) - Claim not raised below was bound to fail on review. III. ORIGINAL WRIT Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in her EM/ORS,PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices will further support that prior to bringing this legal actionbefore the Supreme Court of the United States, Newsome in GOOD FAITH and DILIGENTLYsought relief through the applicable process – to NO avail. Newsome’s efforts proving to be fruitlessbased upon the CORRUPTION and Extraordinary, Exceptional and Critical/Exigent circumstancesof the KEY/BIG MONEY interest groups (i.e. United States President Barack Obama, hisAdministration, Baker Donelson, Libert Mutual, etc.) involved and their ties to POWER POSITIONS(i.e. for instance President of the United States) in the United States Government. Therefore,Newsome’s request for Original Writ is submitted in good faith to commence legal action and directthe applicable parties to appear before this Court and answer for the criminal/civil wrongs leveled Page 41 of 113
  • against Newsome, members of her class and/or other citizens as the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates deems necessary to correct the legal wrongs and injustices complained of in this legal action. Original Writ: A writ commencing an action and directing the defendant to appear and answer. 50. Newsome believes that EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will be in aid of the U.S. Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction – 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) provides that the “Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The statute does not purport to restrict this Court to issuing writs sole in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction. This Court has chosen to limit the application of its Rule 20 to situations in which the writs are in aid to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, and thereby has left the matter of the extraordinary writs in aid of the Court’s original jurisdiction unregulated so far as this Court’s Rules are concerned. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has a continuing power to issue extraordinary writs in aid of either its original jurisdiction20 including as a part of jurisdiction(s) the exercise of general supervisory control over the court system – state or federal: 21 Cotler v. Inter-County Orthopedic Ass’n, 530 F.2d 536 (3rd Cir. 1976) – When court . . . exercises . . . jurisdiction in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, its authority to do so is conferred by this section, and such jurisdiction is exercised as an ORIGINAL action at law. Digital Data Systems, Inc. v. Carpenter, 387 F.2d 529, 156 U.S.P.Q. 225 (5th Cir. 1967) – Where petition was intended as an original proceeding in court . . . under this section, that is, an application for writ . . . it was necessary, to get such ORIGINAL proceeding at issue, for answer to be filed. Anderson v. McLaughlin, 263 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1959) – Extraordinary writs authorized to be issued by courts established by Act of Congress should be issued only under unique and compelling circumstances. Because of the EXTRAORDINARY and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances involved and the growing list of Respondents may INCLUDE States – i.e. their 20 See Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U.S. 552, 553, 2 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed. 811 (1883) (Court has authority to issue writ);Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1885) (“act of congress cannot have the effect andoperation to annul the decision of the court already rendered); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 374, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (“Having thisgeneral power to issue the writ, the court may issue it in the exercise of original jurisdiction where it has original jurisdiction. . . “); seealso Wagner, Original Jurisdiction of National Supreme Courts, 33 St. John’s L. Rev. 217 (1959); cf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137, 147, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (“The term ‘appellate jurisdiction’ is to be taken in its larger sense, and implies in its nature theright of superintending the inferior tribunals.”). 21 See e.g., Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624, 99 S.Ct. 1523, 59 L.Ed. 2d 619 (1979) (“When a lower. . .court refuses togive effect to, or misconstrues our mandate, its actions are controlled by this Court. . .”); MCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634, 635, 60S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992 (1940) (Court directed . . . Court judge to vacate order and retry cases expediently); Ex parte United States, 242U.S. 27, 52, 37 S.Ct. 72, 61 L.Ed. 129 (1916) (mandamus proper remedy for enforcing . . . when. . . Court that passed it has defeated itsexecution). - - Vol. 23 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 520.02[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). Page 42 of 113
  • counties, cities, municipalities and officials thereof – Newsome seeks the Supreme Court of the United States ORIGINAL jurisdiction through any/all means permissible by statutes/laws to provide it with original jurisdiction over the parties and/or subject-matter jurisdiction. IV. WRIT OF INJUNCTION Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in her EM/ORS,PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain her entitlement to the EMERGENCY reliefTIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY brought before this Court. Moreover, that theINJUNCTIVE and other applicable relief sought in this legal action is indisputable and clearlywarranted in that Respondents, WITHOUT this Court’s intervention, will CONTINUE to engage inCORRUPTION to COVER-UP criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome as well as othermembers of her class and/or other citizens of the United States. Furthermore, that Newsome hasGOOD FAITH exhausted applicable avenues in pursuit of justice – to NO avail, thus warranting theSupreme Court of the United States’ intervention/supervisory and original jurisdiction in this matter.There is NO plain, adequate and complete remedy at law to Newsome and the record evidence willsustain IRREPARABLE injury/harm she has sustained and will continue to subjected to unless therelief sought is granted. Writ of Injunction: A court order commanding or preventing an action. - - To get an injunction, the complainant MUST show that there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law and that an IRREPARABLE injury will result unless the relief is granted. U.S. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 72 S.Ct. 690 (1952) - Notwithstanding that injunctive relief is MANDATORY in form, such relief is to undo existing conditions, because otherwise they are likely to continue. Porter v. Lee, 66 S.Ct. 1096 (U.S.Ky.,1946) - Where a defendant with notice in an injunction proceeding contemplates the acts sought to be enjoined, the court may by MANATORY injunction restore the status quo. “In a general sense, EVERY order of a court which commands or forbids is an INJUNCTION; but in its accepted legal sense, an injunction is a JUDICIAL process or MANDATE operating in personam by Page 43 of 113
  • which, upon certain established principles of equity, a party is required to DO or REFRAIN from doing a particular thing. An INJUNCTION has also been defined as a writ FRAMED according to CIRCUMSTANCES of the case, COMMANDING an act which the court REGARDS as ESSENTIAL TO JUSTICE, or RESTRAINING an act which it ESTEEMS CONTRARY to EQUITY and GOOD CONSCIENCE; as a remedial writ which courts issue for the purpose of ENFORCING their equity jurisdiction; and as a writ issuing by the ORDER and UNDER THE SEAL of a court of equity. 1 Howard C. Joyce, A Treatise of the Law Relating to Injunctions § 1, at 2-3 (1909)” Brown v. Gilmore, 122 S.Ct. 1 (U.S.,2001) - Injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist, as Circuit Justice). 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). Injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is appropriate only if the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist, as Circuit Justice). Id. Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 627 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2010) - The All Writs Act permits courts to issue injunctive relief to protect and effectuate their own judgments, so that winning parties will not be forced to litigate a defense of collateral estoppel or seek mandamus orders in every subsequent forum in which they are harassed with the same legal claim until they cry “Uncle!.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 104 S.Ct. 7 (1983) - Court retains power to grant injunctive relief to party to preserve status quo during pendency of appeal, even to Supreme Court. (Per Justice Rehnquist, as Circuit Justice.) Moore v. Sims, 99 S.Ct. 2371 (1979) - Younger doctrine, which counsels federal court abstention when there is pending state proceeding, reflects strong policy against federal intervention in state judicial processes in absence of great and immediate, irreparable injury to federal plaintiff. The record evidence will further sustain that Newsome is in GREAT and IMMEDIATEdanger, irreparable injury and threats on her life and property as state and federal officialsCONTINUE to engage in CORRUPTION /CONSPIRACIES to commit unlawful/illegal acts againstNewsome in RETALIATION and in DISCRIMINATION of her engagement in PROTECTEDACTIVITIES. Page 44 of 113
  • 51. Newsome has REPEATEDLY been a victim of THREATS andCRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs being carried out against her which has threatened herlife and INFRINGED upon her persons and property. 52. Newsome has REPEATEDLY been a victim of THREATS andCRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs being carried out to deprive her of Constitutional Rights,Civil Rights, Human Rights and other rights sustained under the laws of the UnitedStates. Criminal/Unlawful/Illegal wrongs which resulted in theUNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL seizure of Newsome’s property and possession byRespondents. 53. The record evidence will further sustain that Newsome, TIMELY,PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY presented the facts, evidence and legalconclusions through the October 9, 2010 “Emergency Motion to Stay; EmergencyMotion for Enlargement of Time and Other Relief The United States Supreme CourtDeems Appropriate To Correct The Legal Wrongs/Injustices Reported Herein”(“EM/ORS”) submitted for filing with the Supreme Court of the United States – SeeEXHIBIT “28” – United States Postal Service (“USPS”) Mailing Receipt/Proof ofMailing/Receipt attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in fullherein. Through EM/ORS, Newsome provided this Court with the IMMEDIATE andEMERGENCY relief to which she is ENTITLED pending resolution of matter. Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Com’n, 107 S.Ct. 682, 479 U.S. 1312, 93 L.Ed.2d 692 (1986) – . . . justice’s issuance of ORIGINAL writ of injunction, pursuant to All Writs Act and Supreme Court Rule, does not simply suspend judicial alteration of status quo but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts and, thus, demands significantly higher justification than that required for stays of final judgments or decrees of any court to enable party aggrieved to obtain writ . . . from Supreme Court. (Per Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice) 54. The MANDATORY injunctive relief Newsome seeks through thislegal process further request that this Court exercise its supervisory powers and directthe conduct of the Respondents with the backing of its full coercive powers.Furthermore, to DETER further/future criminal/civil wrongs the Respondents haveCONSPIRED and are DETERMINED to level against Newsome, members of herclass and/or citizens that EXPOSE their engagement in the COVER-UP ofCORRUPTION and criminal/civil wrongs. Nken v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 1749 (2009) - When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers. Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 95 S.Ct. 2069 (1975) - Injunctive relief is historically designed to deter, not to punish. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 85 S.Ct. 1116 (1965) - Injunctive relief looks to the future. Douglas v. City of Jeannette (Pennsylvania), 63 S.Ct. 877Newsome further seeks the Supreme Court of the United States for injunctive reliefbecause of the EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT Page 45 of 113
  • circumstances warrant it. Without this Court’s intervention to supervise and directthe implementation/enforcement injunctions, Respondents will CONTINUE on aCRIMINAL and DESTRUCTIVE course to cause Newsome - members of her class,and/or citizens who oppose such injustices and EXPOSE the government’s role inCORRUPTION and the COVER-UP of same - IRREPARABLE injury/harm forpurposes of Terrorizing, Oppressing, Harassing, Threatening, Discriminating,Obstructing Justice, Depriving citizens of Protected Rights, Blackmail, Coercion,Intimidation, etc. 55. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsprovided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustainthat while the relief sought under the ALL WRITS ACT provide remedies that areDRASTIC and EXTRAORDINARY, she believes a reasonable mind (given the factsand circumstances underlying this case) may conclude that this legal action involvesEXCEPTIONAL/EXTRAORDINARY as well as CRITICAL/EXIGENTcircumstances governing and sustain the use of remedies/relief sought. Banker Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 74 S.Ct. 145, 346 U.S. 379, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953) – United States Supreme Court has power, in a proper case, to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, injunction against judges, but such remedies are DRASTIC and EXTRAORDINARY, and as such are reserved for really EXTRAORDINARY cases, and should be RESORTED to ONLY where appeal is a clearly INADEQUATE remedy. 56. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsprovided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustainshe is entitled to the injunctive relief sought depends on the equitable principles,nature of rights to which she is entitled that have been invaded and the adequacy ofthe remedy at law. Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States interventionand exercise of SUPERVISORY powers to correct any/all MISCARRIAGES ofjustices and LEGAL WRONGS made known to it. Sterling v. Constantin, 53 S.Ct. 190 (1932) - Whether injured party is entitled to injunction depends on equitable principles, on nature of right invaded, and adequacy of remedy at law. 57. The EM/ORS, PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices willfurther sustain that the INJUNCTIVE relief sought to prevent future violations ofRespondents leveled against Newsome, members of her class and citizens that engagein EXPOSING the COVER-UP and CORRUPTION in the United States Governmentand those it conspire with to deprive citizens of EQUAL protection of the laws,EQUAL privileges and immunities and DUE PROCESS of laws. Evidence furthersustaining that the relief sought by Newsome is needed and MANDATORY as amatter of statutes/laws governing said matters. U.S. v. W. T. Grant Co., 73 S.Ct. 894 (1953) - Purpose of injunction is to prevent future violations and it can be utilized even without a showing of past wrongs, but moving party must satisfy court that relief is needed. Page 46 of 113
  • It is a good thing Newsome provided the Supreme Court of the United States withher EM/ORS as well as the lower courts’ and federal agencies’ records will sustaina PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE, PATTERN-OF-ABUSE, PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL/CIVIL violations, etc. leveled against Newsome to establish theinjunctive relief and other applicable relief requested as a matter of law to correctthe injustices complained of. 58. The facts, evidence and legal conclusion provided in EM/ORS,PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that a REAL THREATof FUTURE violation or CONTEMPORARY violation of nature is INEVITABLE –i.e. as established by the PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE of Respondents – and MOSTLIKELY than not will CONTINUE/RECUR. Furthermore, it matters NOT about thecalendar of years (i.e. CRIMINAL stalking of Newsome and CONSPIRACIESleveled against her spanning for decade(s)) that has lapsed, JUSTICE is LONGOVERDUE and it is time to get CRIMINAL Respondents off the street, out of thecourts and out of the government. The MANDATORY injunctive relief sought isneeded to UNDUE existing conditions as well as FUTURE acts that Respondentshave contemplated and/or presently CONSPIRING to carry out against Newsome andother citizens. U.S. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 72 S.Ct. 690 (1952) - Real threat of future violation or contemporary violation of nature likely to continue or recur is sufficient to make cause of action for relief by injunction, and once established, it adds nothing that calendar of years gone by might have been filled with transgressions. Notwithstanding that injunctive relief is mandatory in form, such relief is to undo existing conditions, because otherwise they are likely to continue. Id. 59. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS,PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices, as well as lower courts and governmentagencies’ records will sustain that Newsome filed/submitted the applicablecomplaints to PRESERVE her claims and/or issues raised. To no avail. Therefore,resulting in the bringing of this instant action before the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates due to the EXTRAORDINRY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENTcircumstances involved; moreover, the PERPETRATORS (i.e. States/Counties/Cities, Judges/Justices, Attorneys, President of the United States and hisAdministration, Law Firms, Insurance Companies, etc.). Moreover, calling for thisCourt’s intervention and the restoration of cases as permitted by the statutes/lawsgoverning said matters. Porter v. Lee, 66 S.Ct. 1096 (U.S.Ky.,1946) - Where a defendant with notice in an injunction proceeding contemplates the acts sought to be enjoined, the court may by mandatory injunction restore the status quo. 60. MANDATORY injunctive relief is sought to remedy the legalinjustices leveled against Newsome, members of her class and/or citizens who opposethe COVER-UP of CORRUPTION in the United States Government and othercriminal/civil wrongs. Page 47 of 113
  • Morrison v. Work, 45 S.Ct. 149 (1925) - Mandatory injunction issued to remedy and not to promote wrong. 61. Newsome believes that because of the EXTRAORDINARY circumstances and PERPETRATORS/CONSPIRATORS involved, AFFIRMATIVE and DECISIVE action is needed by the Supreme Court of the United States – demanding the exercise of its full powers to deter and prevent the criminal/civil wrongs reported - 42 USC § 1986: Action for neglect to prevent22 Ex parte Lennon, 17 S.Ct. 658 (U.S.Ohio,1897) - A court of equity is not limited to the restraint of threatened action, but may require affirmative action where the circumstances demand it. 62. Because of the EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances and the ties/key relationships Respondents have to KEY/PROMINENT government agencies/officials, Newsome (as in this instant matter before this Court) requested to be advised of any “CONFLICT OF INTEREST.” Therefore, the MANDATORY injunctive relief is sought to direct and supervise the enforcement and adherence to order(s) issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of U. S., Inc., 100 S.Ct. 1194 (1980) - Persons subject to an injunctive order issued by a court with jurisdiction are expected to obey that decree until it is modified or reversed, even if they have proper grounds to object to the order. 63. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions set forth in EM/ORS, PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that she took the necessary steps/precautions to assure that TOP/KEY Government Department Heads/Judges/Justices, etc. were TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY advised as to what crimes/civil wrongs were being committed and/or PLACED on NOTICE of the CONSPIRACY(S) they were engaged in. To no avail. ALL proceeded with KNOWLEDGE to fulfill their ROLES in conspiracies leveled against Newsome. Moreover, were aware of the CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs being carried out UNDER THEIR WATCH. Jones v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 56 S.Ct. 654 (1936) - Where suit is brought to enjoin certain acts or activities, of which suit defendant has notice, hands of defendant are effectually tied pending hearing and determination, notwithstanding no restraining order or preliminary injunction be issued. After defendant has been notified of pendency of suit seeking injunction against him, notwithstanding temporary injunction is not granted, he acts at his peril and subject to power of court to restore 22 Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of thistitle, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so todo, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by suchwrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on thecase; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; . . . Page 48 of 113
  • status, wholly irrespective of merits as they may be ultimately decided. Id. The facts and evidence will sustain just how PERSISTENT and DETERMINED Respondents were in engaging in criminal/civil wrongs for purposes of Destroying evidence, Terrorizing, Oppressing, Harassing, Threatening, Discriminating, Obstructing Justice, Depriving citizens of Protected Rights, Blackmail, Coercion, Intimidation, etc. Respondents engaging in criminal/civil wrongs with KNOWLEDGE their “hands were tied” because Newsome had advised of appealing and/or advised of taking matter out of their hands through the applicable and/or appropriate legal process. Even in the lawsuit that initiated the bringing of this matter before the Supreme Court of the United States, the facts, evidence and legal conclusions will sustain how far Respondents went even with KNOWLEDGE and NOTIFICATION that Newsome would take to the High Court. In fact, going as far as to ENGAGE the MAJORITY of the Ohio Supreme Court Justices to FULFILL their ROLES in CONSPIRACY and engage in COVER-UP of CORRUPTION and criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome. Upon Newsome’s RESEARCH and INVESTIGATION into the handling of her matters, she discovered that that MAJORITY of the Supreme Court of OHIO appears to be PURCHASED by KEY/HIGH POWER MONEY INTEREST GROUPS – i.e. with ties to the President of the United States, Judges/Justices, United States Senators, United States Representatives, Judiciary, etc. – such as Baker Donelson, their clients (i.e. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE), etc. V. WRIT OF CONSPIRACY23 Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions contained herein will sustaina PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE in the CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome by Respondents andtheir Conspirators/Co-Conspirators. Furthermore, that this Court was TIMELY, PROPERLY andADEQUATELY placed on notice of the CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs of judges assigned mattersinvolving Newsome. To NO avail. This Court also being one that engaged in CONSPIRACIESleveled against Newsome in the posting of false, misleading and malicious information on theINTERNET for purposes of destroying Newsome’s life, depriving her EQUAL protection of thelaws, EQUAL privileges and immunities and DUE PROCESS of laws. In fact, an 23 Respondent (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 49 of 113
  • INVESTIGATION will sustain that approximately ALL (if not the MAJORITY) of judges/justicesassigned legal matters involving Newsome have ALL engaged in CONSPIRACIES to compromiselawsuits to provide opposing parties and their counsel with undue/unlawful/illegal advantages forpurposes of subjecting Newsome to criminal/civil wrongs in RETALIATION for her engagement inPROTECTED ACTIVITIES. For instance: a) Judge G. Thomas Porteous (i.e. in Louisiana matter) was just IMPEACHED and REMOVED from office on or about December 8, 2010. See EXHIBIT “40” – News Articles on Judge Porteous attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Newsome having concerns about criminal/civil violations rendered by Judge Porteous and/or court and, therefore, filed a Complaint with the United States Department of Justice. See Exhibit “34” of EM/ORS herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. In this instant action, Newsome is seeking the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention, supervision and applicable powers to correct injustices/miscarriages of justice. b) Judge Bobby DeLaughter (i.e. in one of the Mississippi matters) was INDICTED and pled “GUILTY” to criminal charges. See EXHIBIT “41” – News Articles on Judge DeLaughter attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Newsome having concerns about criminal/civil violations rendered by Judge DeLaughter and/or court and, therefore, notified the appropriate Government agency of her concerns. To NO avail. In this instant action, Newsome is seeking the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention, supervision and applicable powers to correct injustices/miscarriages of justice. c) Judge Tom S. Lee (i.e. in two of the Mississippi matters) KNEW there was a “Conflict of Interest” however, remained in the lawsuits for purposes of providing opposing parties/Respondents with an undue/unlawful/illegal advantage. This is also the matter where the Clerk of Courts (i.e. J.T. Noblin) may have had a “Conflict of Interest” because his son was once employed with some of the Defendants’ lawyers’ firm. These are also the lawsuits in which the records may have been COMPROMISED for purposes of providing opposing parties/Respondents with and undue/unlawful/illegal advantage. Moreover, for purposes of influencing the outcome of lawsuit. Newsome requesting this court to advise whether there were any “Conflict of Interest.” Moreover, record evidence will support Newsome’s inquiries to determine whether RECUSAL would be necessary. Newsome having concerns about criminal/civil violations rendered by Judge Lee, Magistrate Judge(s) and/or court and, therefore, filed a Complaint with the United States Congress/Legislature. See Exhibit “38” of EM/ORS herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. In this instant action, Newsome is Page 50 of 113
  • seeking the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention, supervision and applicable powers to correct injustices/miscarriages of justice.d) Judge John Andrew West (i.e. in the Ohio matter) out of which this instant legal action has been brought has been requested to RECUSE himself from lawsuit; however, has REFUSED to do so. Newsome believes that Judge West has also engaged in criminal acts out of which resulted in her having to file a Criminal Complaint with the United States Department of Justice. See Exhibit “30” of EM/ORS herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. In this instant action, Newsome is seeking the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention, supervision and applicable powers to correct injustices/miscarriages of justice.e) Supreme Court of Ohio Justices out of which this instant legal action has been brought, according to research and record evidence, may have had a “Conflict of Interest;” however, KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY and with MALICIOUS intent withheld this information from Newsome and FAILED to recuse themselves although TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY notified of Newsome’s concerns. Furthermore, Justices remained in the case and according to the record evidence engaged in criminal acts. As a direct and proximate result of the criminal/civil violations leveled against Newsome by the Supreme Court of Ohio Justices, she moved forward and filed a Criminal Complaint with the United States Department of Justice. See Exhibit “16” of EM/ORS herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Said Justices remained in the case with KNOWLEDGE that they receive HUGH/SUBSTANIAL financial contributions from opposing party(s) and, therefore, to provide said contributor(s) with an undue/unlawful/illegal advantage in lawsuit, Justices engaged in criminal behavior for purposes of obstructing justice and other known criminal reasons. In this instant action, Newsome is seeking the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention, supervision and applicable powers to correct injustices/miscarriages of justice. Writ of Conspiracy: A writ against one who conspired to injure the plaintiff. . . Salinas v. U.S., 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997) - Conspiracy may exist and be punished is distinct evil, whether or not substantive crime ensues, for conspiracy dangerous to public, and so punishable in itself. It is possible for person to conspire for commission of crime by third person. U.S. v. Schaffer, 586 F.3d 414 (C.A.6.Ohio,2009) - Because the illegality of an agreement to commit an unlawful act, as the basis of a conspiracy charge, does not depend upon the achievement of its ends, it is irrelevant that it may be objectively impossible for the conspirators to commit the substantive offense; indeed, it is the mutual understanding or agreement itself that is criminal, and whether the object of the scheme actually is, as the parties believe it to be, unlawful is irrelevant. Page 51 of 113
  • 64. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS,PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices further sustain Respondents’criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome is racially motivated, done forpurposes of TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST intent to keep her, and membersof her class in fear of their lives, enslaved, oppressed, in poverty and deprived ofEQUAL protection of the laws, EQUAL privileges and immunities and DUEPROCESS of laws, life, liberties and pursuit of happiness. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 91 S.Ct. 1790 (U.S.Miss.,1971) - Ku Klux Klan Act, affording civil remedy for conspiracy to deprive person or class of persons of equal protection of laws or equal privileges and immunities, covers private conspiracies. Ku Klux Klan Act language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection or equal privileges and immunities means that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind conspirators action; conspiracy must aim at deprivation of equal enjoyment of rights secured by law to all. Id. That Ku Klux Klan Act reaches private conspiracies to deprive others of legal rights did not render it unconstitutional. Id. Ku Klux Klan Act is constitutional under Congress powers under Thirteenth Amendment to create statutory cause of action for Negro citizens who have been victims of conspiratorial, racially discriminatory private action aimed at depriving them of basic rights that law secures to all free men. Id. 65. Newsome believes that the facts and evidence will sustain, while it isNOT necessary to find an express agreement, that Respondents engaged in a concertof action contemplated to engage in criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsomeand deprive her rights secured/guaranteed under the Constitution and other laws ofthe United States. Each Respondent conforming to the arrangement. U.S. v. Paramount Pictures, 68 S.Ct. 915 (1948) - It is not necessary to find an express agreement in order to find a conspiracy, but it is sufficient that a concert of action is contemplated and that defendants conform to the arrangement. Interstate Circuit v. U.S., 59 S.Ct. 467 (1939) - An unlawful “conspiracy” may be formed without simultaneous action or agreement on the part of the conspirators. 66. A PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE of Respondents/Conspirators leveledagainst Newsome as well as the NEXUS establishing connection and associationbeing in RETALIATION of Newsome’s engagement in protected activities. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 41 S.Ct. 172 (1921) - An unlawful “conspiracy” is a combination between two or more persons to do an unlawful or criminal act, or to do a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means. 67. Newsome through this instant legal action brought before this Court,believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEWand their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will further sustain that the Page 52 of 113
  • CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome by Respondents exists today and willcontinue without the intervention of the Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 123 S.Ct. 819 (U.S.,2003) - Conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the government, unbeknownst to some of the conspirators, has defeated the conspiracys object. 68. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsprovided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will furthersustain that it is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest to EXPOSE the CORRUPTIONand COVER-UP in the United States Government and its officials as well as WHITEemployers/businesses for GOOD FAITH purposes of protecting SOCIETY fromfurther dangers and criminal/civil wrongs of Respondents. Moreover, providingCRITICAL/CRUCIAL information to EXPOSE just how ELABORATE,ORGANIZED and DEEP-ROOTED Respondents are in Government positions toprovide them with the ability INFLUENCE the role the United StatesGovernment/Government Officials have played in CONSPIRACIES leveled not onlyagainst Newsome, but against other CITIZENS/FOREIGN COUNTRIES and theirLeaders/Citizens for purposes of destroying their lives. Furthermore, the record hasSUFFICIENT and SUSTAINABLE evidence that Respondents engaged inconspiracies which THREATENS and CONTINUES to threaten the social order.Thus, warranting the relief writs and criminal sanctions permissible by law of andagainst Respondents. U. S. v. Feola, 95 S.Ct. 1255 (1975) -Two independent values served by the law of conspiracy are the protection of society from the dangers of concerted criminal activity and the identification of an agreement to engage in crime as sufficiently threatening to the social order to warrant its being the subject of criminal sanctions regardless of whether the crime agreed upon is actually committed. 18 U.S.C.A. § 371. 69. Newsome believes that the laws of the United States are clear aboutthe NEED TO GO PUBLIC in the EXPOSURE of the CORRUPTION and COVER-UP by Respondents, United States Government/Government Officials because of theTERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST behavior that can be sustained by the facts,evidence and legal conclusions presented in the EM/ORS, PFEW and theirsupporting Exhibits/Appendices. Newsome seeing just how WICKED/EVIL theRespondents could be and the METHODS/MEANS relied upon to keep her andmembers of her class in FEAR of their lives, BONDAGE/SLAVERY/OPPRESSION,etc. knew that she would have to go to battle against a GIANT like the United Statesand the Respondents that engaged in CONSPIRACIES leveled against her, membersof her class, and foreign countries. Salinas v. U.S., 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997) - Conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or is distinct evil, dangerous not substantive crime ensues, for conspiracy to public, and so punishable in itself. It is possible for person to conspire for commission of crime by third person. Page 53 of 113
  • IMPORTANT TO NOTE It is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest to let it be known the role the United States Government may have played in the KATRINA disaster in New Orleans, Louisiana. This was a case where the Government KNEW and/or should have KNOWN of the breach/weakness in the Levees there. Clearly they KNEW that a direct hit of a Hurricane – which this was not – the Levees WOULD NOT hold up. Rather than repair these Levees, the Government allowed them to remain in bad condition. Why? Because BIG MONEY/SPECIAL INTEREST Groups were interested in the African-American/Blacks property and these citizens REFUSED to give up their lands to them. Therefore, the Government resorted to CRIMINAL behavior for in hopes of such DISASTER to force this race of people out of their homes and property. See for instance EXHIBIT “29” – Hurricane Katrina photos attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. This also answers the question that many CITIZENS and/or the PUBLIC/WORLD wanted to know – Why was the RESPONSE from the White House so slow? New Orleans is a one of the MAJOR cities that Baker Donelson has a BIG LAW FIRM SET UP IN!!! Ching. . . Ching. . . Ching – BIG MONEY/SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AT WORK!! Information which is PERTINENT and RELEVANT as it goes to PATTERN-OF-CORRUPTION and PATTERN-OF- GOVERNMENT COVER-UPS, etc.Therefore, in OCTOBER 2010, Newsome prepared and distributed under rightssecured under the Constitution and laws of the United States her 97-Page PowerPointPresentation entitled, “Clean Out Congress 2010 – Americans Take BACK YourCountry/Government – Come November 2010 Vote OUT The Incumbents CareerPoliticians” – See EXHIBIT “6” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as ifset forth in full herein. With a TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST Regime likethe President Obama, his Administration and Respondents, it was time to takePRECISIVE ACTION and go PUBLIC with the CONSPIRACIES not only leveledagainst Newsome, but members of her class and Foreign MIDDLE EASTCOUNTRIES/THEIR LEADERS/THEIR CITIZENS. Scales v. U.S., 81 S.Ct. 1469 (1961) - Legal concepts of conspiracy and complicity manifest general principle that society, having power to punish dangerous behavior, cannot be powerless against those who work to bring about that behavior.While Newsome may not understood the responses received – i.e. for instance seeEXHIBIT “30” – Example of E-mail Responses attached hereto and incorporated asif set forth in full herein – what was important to her was knowing that herMESSAGE/INFORMATION may have reached FOREIGN COUNTRIES and theircitizens abroad. Page 54 of 113
  • 70. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that the gist of Respondents’ CONSPIRACIES was an agreement to commit criminal/civil offenses against Newsome, members of her class and Foreign Countries/Leaders/Citizens for purposes of keeping them in FEAR/SLAVERY/ BONDAGE and OPPRESSED. Moreover, CONSPIRING for purposes of taking their property and possessions for FILTHY LUCRE/GAIN! United States v. Falcone, 61 S.Ct. 204 (1940) - The gist of a “conspiracy” is an agreement among conspirators to commit an offense, attended by an act of one or more of the conspirators to effect the object of the conspiracy. Cr.Code, § 37, 18 U.S.C.A. § 88. See for instance EXHIBITS “31” and “32” respectively – United States Indian Reservations and the MODERN day African-American/Black Plantations/ Reservations. Isolating such groups and subjecting them to the “WILLIE LYNCH” practices for purposes of getting such class of people to resort to criminal behavior; moreover, TARGETING the African-American/Black male for purposes of destroying the family structure and COVERING UP the INSECURITIES that the White male has had towards the African-American/Black male – i.e. as in slavery, removing the black male, then leaving the Big House to come down and rape the black women, etc. In today’s society, it is a matter of locking the African- American/Black male in PRISON for purposes of breaking him down and destroying a culture/race of people. See EXHIBIT “33” – Prisoner Article attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 71. Newsome further believes it is PERTINENT and RELEVANT to see just how ELABORATE the United States ENSLAVEMENT of African- American/Blacks and/or People of Color is and why these classes of people do NOT thrive – i.e. because of the TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST practices of the United States Government/Government Officials. Furthermore, how Newsome has now been waiting approximately SIX (6) MONTHS for monies IMMEDIATELY due (i.e. through EMERGENCY RELIEF permissible by statutes/laws) her for the CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled against her and brought to this Court’s attention as early as October 9, 2010, through “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.” Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in said Motion and subsequent pleadings (i.e. which include Petition for Extraordinary Writ and this instant filing along with their supporting Exhibits/Appendices) that she is entitled to the following relief IMMEDIATELY/NOW:24 24 Section 706(f)(2) of Title VII authorizes the Commission to seek temporary injunctive relief before finaldisposition of a charge when a preliminary investigation indicates that prompt judicial action is necessary to carry out thepurposes of Title VII. Page 55 of 113
  • Bi-Weekly From Monies Owed As of 10/2010 11/5/10 Thru 4/22/11 TOTAL Wood & Lamping $88,888.53 $22,594.20 $111,482.73 Mitchell McNutt & Sams $182,101.34 $18,186.36 $200,287.70 Page Kruger & Holland $168,321.38 $18,731.88 $187,053.26 GMM Properties $18,480.00 $4,620.00 $23,100.00 Spring Lake Apartments $40,320.00 $4,320.00 $44,640.00 Stor-All $5,500.00 $0.00 $5,500.00 Kenton County Court $16,250.00 $0.00 $16,250.00 Kentucky Department of Revenue $600.00 $0.00 $600.00 U.S Department of Treasury $1,800.00 $0.00 $1,800.00 Brian Bishop $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 Richard Rehfeldt $700.00 $0.00 $700.00 Wanda Abioto $4,000.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $528,461.25 $68,452.44 $596,913.69as well as INJUNCTIVE and other applicable relief that the statutes/laws MANDATORILY require beIMPOSED prior to the conclusion of matter for Newsome’s PROTECTION as well as rightssecured/guaranteed under the Constitution and/or laws of the United States. Clearly the laws are NOTEQUALLY applied when Whites are involved. Newsome believes that had she been “White” andrepresented by “White” lawyers this matter would have been resolved in her favor. Not only that, thosecommitting crimes as that leveled against Newsome would be doing PRISON time as O.J. Simpson is(i.e. 33 years). However, because they are “WHITE,” the lawyers, counsel and/or advisors to thePresident of the United States and hold KEY/HIGH Government positions andPOLITICAL/GOVERNMENT influence, they are ALLOWED to continue in public life and CONTINUEin their TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST/BULLYING practices against other citizen that opposetheir criminal/civil wrongs. 72. Newsome believes that based upon the EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances addressed in this legal action, the record evidence may further sustain that Respondents engaged in the COVER-UP of CONSPIRACIES which involved criminal acts as that set out in the EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices. Pettibone v. U.S., 13 S.Ct. 542 (1893) - A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons by concerted action to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose, or some purpose not in itself criminal, by criminal or unlawful means. Temporary or preliminary relief allows a court to stop retaliation before it occurs or continues. Such relief isappropriate if there is a substantial likelihood that the challenged action will be found to constitute unlawful retaliation, andif the charging party and/or EEOC will likely suffer irreparable harm because of retaliation. Although courts have ruled thatfinancial hardships are not irreparable, other harms that accompany loss of a job may be irreparable. - - For example, in onecase forced retirees showed irreparable harm and qualified for a preliminary injunction where they lost work and future prospectsfor work consequently suffering emotional distress, depression, a contracted social life, and other related harms. Page 56 of 113
  • Then, for instance, in an effort to COVER-UP crimes, Respondents CREATED FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGES against Newsome alleging for instance: (a) Resisting Arrest; and (b) Disorderly Conduct – Failure to Comply with Law Enforcement. See EXHIBIT “34” – Criminal Charges filed against Newsome which were dismissed See EXHIBIT “35”. attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Criminal Charges/Malicious Prosecution: i) Which lower court dismissed. ii) Which engaged the role of government officials (i.e. judge(s), constable(s), officers of the court, etc.). iii) Which is a WELL-ESTABLISHED manner of practice used by Respondents, Government/Government Officials against Newsome and/or members of her class for purposes of Terrorizing, Oppressing, Harassing, Threatening, Discriminating, Obstructing Justice, Depriving citizens of Protected Rights, Blackmail, Coercion, Intimidation, etc. – i.e. implemented to BREAK African-Americans/Blacks down. iv) Which is a part of a WELL-ESTABLISHED manner used by a CORRUPT Government and its Officials and those who conspire with it – in fact, in the matter involving President Barack Obama’s former Professor (Louis Gates), the Police Officer (Crowley) in that matter ALSO COMPROMISED and filed a FALSE report to COVER-UP his criminal behavior. All that resulted of that appears to be a meeting at the White House with President Obama to have BEER!! VI. WRIT OF COURSE Newsome hereby request the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and executionof the applicable Writ(s) as a matter of course or granted as a matter of right to correct and deter theinjustices/miscarriage of justice complained of. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions providedin EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain the timely filing ofapplicable complaints/pleadings/documents to PRESERVE rights of Newsome secured/guaranteedunder the Constitution and other laws of the United States governing said matters. Writ of Course: A writ issued as a matter of course or granted as a matter of right. 73. Newsome believes that there is sufficient facts, evidence and legal conclusions to sustain the Supreme Court of the United States – being a court of equity – knows and/or should know that it has the power to issue the applicable writs Page 57 of 113
  • of assistance or possession for the purposes of enforcing its Orders and Decrees to correct the legal wrongs and miscarriage of justices addressed herein and that of EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices. Gormley v. Clark, 10 S.Ct. 554 (1890) - A court of equity has power to issue writs of assistance or possession for the purpose of enforcing its orders and decrees. 74. Newsome believes that, as with the bringing of this instant legal action, there is SUFFICIENT evidence in the lower courts’ records to SUSTAIN a PATTERN-OF-ABUSE and PATTERN-OF-JUDICIAL USURPATION OF POWER wherein courts knew and/or should have known that they were CLEARLY acting WITHOUT jurisdiction. Moreover, that Newsome TIMELY and PROPERLY filed the adequate pleadings and/or NOTICES advising of lack of JURISDICTION. To NO avail. Lower courts acted to their own peril/destruction/demise. While Respondents wanted to MOCK Newsome for the length of her pleadings, the evidence will sustain that such attacks were done with MALICIOUS intent and in efforts to OBSTRUCTING the administration of justice. Newsome PRESERVING her rights in a TIMELY manner by filing the applicable pleadings. In re Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 41 S.Ct. 288 (U.S.Ohio,1921) - Prohibition will issue if the lower court is clearly without jurisdiction over petitioner, who, at the outset, objected to the jurisdiction, had preserved his rights by appropriate procedure, and had no other remedy. . . VII. WRIT OF DETINUE25 Newsome hereby request the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and executionof the applicable Writ(s) to recover personal property wrongfully taken from her by Respondents andto correct and deter the injustices/miscarriage of justice complained of. The facts, evidence and legalconclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain thetimely filing of applicable complaints/pleadings/documents to PRESERVE rights of Newsomesecured/guaranteed under the Constitution and other laws of the United States governing saidmatters. 25 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 58 of 113
  • Writ of Detinue: A common law action to recover personal property wrongfully taken by another. “A claim in detinue lies at the suit of a person who has an immediate right to possession of the goods against the person who is in actual possession of them, and who, upon proper demand, fails or refuses to deliver them, and who, upon proper demand, fails or refuses to deliver them up WITHOUT lawful excuse. Detinue at the present day has two main uses. In the FIRST place, the plaintiff may desire the SPECIFIC restitution of his chattels and NOT damages for their conversion. He will then sue in detinue, NOT in trover. In the SECOND place, the plaintiff will have to sue in detinue if the defendant sets up no claim of ownership and has not been guilty of trespass. . . 75. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS,PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices may further support that in ALL legalmatters where Newsome’s property and possessions were taken, ALL were doneWITHOUT legal process and/or Court Order; moreover, ALL Respondentsinvolved FALSIFIED and/or TAMPERED with PROCESS for purposes ofOBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and fulfilling their ROLE in CONSPIRACIES. Thenwhen criminal charges were filed, ALL relied upon otherRespondents/Conspirators/Co-Conspirators to AID and ABET in the COVER-UPof criminal/civil wrongs. The legal action Newsome brings before the SupremeCourt of the United States entitles her to the RESTORATION and status in quo asit was when the right(s) to be vindicated were invaded. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885) - In cases of detinue the action is purely defensive on the part of the plaintiff. Its object is merely to resist an attempted wrong and to restore the status in quo as it was when the right to be vindicated was invaded. .. . . Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Howell Bros. Truck & Auto Repair Inc., 325 So.2d 562 (1975) - Where defendants possession of property is wrongful, a demand is not necessary to recover damages for detention. 76. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionprovided in EM/ORS, PFEW and the supporting Exhibits/Appendices may alsosustain that Respondents REPEATEDLY ABUSED and/or FALSIFIED legalprocess and UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY seized Newsome’s property andpossessions WITHOUT legal process and/or WITHOUT COURT ORDER. Thenrelied upon the SPECIAL TIES/RELATIONSHIPS to judges/justices to AID andABET in the COVER-UP of CONSPIRACIES and criminal/civil wrongs leveledagainst Newsome. CONSPIRACIES in such matters which involve SEVERAL Page 59 of 113
  • states in diverse jurisdictions. Therefore, the Supreme Court of the United Statesjurisdiction is hereby invoked and requested to correct legal wrongs and issue theapplicable INJUNCTIVE, DETINUE and other relief necessary to correct saidwrongs. Moreover, provide Newsome with IMMEDIATE relief asrequested/demanded until the rest of legal matters may be resolved. Lowther v. Ohio Valley Oil & Gas Co., 108 S.E. 276 (1921) - It is not necessary in an action of detinue to make a formal demand for the delivery of property; but in order to convert a lawful possession into an unlawful detention a demand must be made, and from the date of the demand damages for the detention will begin to accrue. . . . Chappell v. Falkner, 66 So. 890 (1914) - No demand is necessary to maintain detinue for property wrongfully taken by defendants under a bona fide claim of ownership. 77. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusionsset forth herein as well as in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supportingExhibits/Appendices may sustain her ENTITLEMENT to the IMMEDIATE reliefsought as well as the RETURN/RESTORATION of her property and possessions.Therefore, the Supreme Court of the United States may issue the applicableOrder(s)/Ruling(s) to correct the injustices and miscarriages of justice complainedof herein. Hodges v. Kyle, 63 So. 761 (1913) - Failure to demand property before bringing suit held not to defeat recovery in detinue, where defendant acquired possession wrongfully. Marr v. Kubel, 4 Mackey 577 (1886) - In detinue, no demand is necessary, service of the writ being sufficient. Carraway v. McNeice, Walker 538 (Miss.,1832). Robinson v. Keith, 25 Iowa 321 (1868) - In detinue, if the taking of the property was wrongful, no demand is necessary before commencing suit. Gardner v. Boothe, 31 Ala. 186 (1857) - In detinue, plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the unlawful detention, without proof of a demand. Vaughn v. Wood, 5 Ala. 304 (1843) - In detinue, the writ is a sufficient demand of the thing detained; and a previous demand is not otherwise necessary than to enable the plaintiff to recover damages for the detention before suit brought. Carraway v. McNeice, Walker 538 (Miss.,1832). Gentrys Admr v. McKehen, 5 Dana 34 (Ky.,1837). Page 60 of 113
  • VIII. WRIT OF ENTRY26 Newsome hereby request the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and executionof the applicable Writ(s) to allow her to RETAKE property and possession of residences/propertyWRONGFULLY/ILLEGALLY/UNLAWFULLY taken from her to correct and deter theinjustices/miscarriage of justice complained of. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions providedin EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain the timely filing ofapplicable complaints/pleadings/documents to PRESERVE rights of Newsome secured/guaranteedunder the Constitution and other laws of the United States governing said matters. Writ of Entry: A writ that allows a person WRONGFULLY disposed of real property to enter and RETAKE the property. 78. Newsome request, through this filing, that the Supreme Court of the United States grant any and all applicable relief to correct the injustices/miscarriages of justices complained of herein and/or KNOWN to it to remedy said wrongs. IX. WRIT OF EXIGI FACIAS/SCIRE FACIAS27 Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in this instantfiling as well as the EM/ORS, PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that theSupreme Court of the United States has been provided with list (while not all) of those who may bedeemed or become deemed as Respondents in instant legal matters before this Court. Furthermore,because of the EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances 26 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). 27 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 61 of 113
  • and the KEY/HIGH/POWERFUL players (i.e. President Barack Obama, Ohio Supreme CourtJustices, Baker Donelson, Liberty Mutual, etc.) involved, this Court may have to issue theappropriate documents requiring the appearances of Respondents to show cause why the reliefNewsome seeks of and against him/her should not be granted or why dormant judgment(s)/case(s) –if any – should not be revived. Writ of Exigi Facias: That you cause to be demanded. Exigent: Requiring IMMEDIATE action or aid; URGENT. Blacks Law Dictionary - Scire Facias: A writ requiring the person against whom it is issued to appear and show cause why some matter of record should not be annulled or vacated, or why a dormant judgment against that person should not be revived. 79. Newsome request, through this filing, that the Supreme Court of the United States grant any and all applicable relief to correct the injustices/miscarriages of justices complained of herein and/or KNOWN to it to remedy said wrongs. Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (U.S.Ky.,1825) - Under Judiciary Act . . . providing that court shall have power to issue writs of scire facias . . . and all other writs not specially provided by statute which may be necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction, the general term “writs” is NOT restrained to original process or to process anterior to judgment. Waldens Lessee v. Craigs Heirs, 39 U.S. 147 (U.S.Ky.,1840) - Demurrers to writs of scire facias raise only questions of law on facts stated in writ. X. WRIT OF FORMEDON28 Newsome hereby request the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and executionof the applicable Writ(s) for claiming entailed property/residences held by Respondent(s) to correctand deter the injustices/miscarriage of justice complained of. The facts, evidence and legalconclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain the 28 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 62 of 113
  • timely filing of applicable complaints/pleadings/documents to PRESERVE rights of Newsomesecured/guaranteed under the Constitution and other laws of the United States governing saidmatters. Writ of Formedon: A writ of right for claiming entailed property held by another. A writ of formedon was the highest remedy available to a tenant. 80. Newsome request, through this filing, that the Supreme Court of the United States grant any and all applicable relief to correct the injustices/miscarriages of justices complained of herein and/or KNOWN to it to remedy said wrongs. Monagas v. Vidal, 170 F.2d 99 (1948) - An action of “revendication” is an action by which a man demands a thing of which he claims to be the owner, and action relates to immovables as well as movables, and to corporeal or incorporeal things. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. Voudoumas, 151 A. 81 (1930) - Writ of entry is essentially possessory in character. XI. WRIT OF MANDAMUS29 Newsome hereby request the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and executionof the applicable Writ(s) to COMPEL lower courts and government agencies to performMANDATORY and MINISTERIAL duties owed her and to correct and deter theinjustices/miscarriage of justice complained of. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions providedin EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain the timely filing ofapplicable complaints/pleadings/documents to PRESERVE rights of Newsome secured/guaranteedunder the Constitution and other laws of the United States governing said matters. Writ of Mandamus: A writ issued by a superior court to COMPEL a lower court or a government officer to PERFORM 29 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 63 of 113
  • MANDATORY and purely MINISTERIAL duties CORRECTLY. “Alternative Mandamus: A mandamus issued upon the FIRST application of relief, COMMANDING the defendant either to PERFORM the act DEMANDED or to APPEAR before the court at a specified time to SHOW CAUSE for not performing it.” “Peremptory Mandamus: An ABSOLUTE and UNQUALIFIED command to the defendant to DO the act in question.” 81. Newsome believes based upon the facts, evidence and legalconclusions provided herein as well as EM/ORS, PFEW and their supportingExhibits/Appendices, that prior to her bringing this action before the SupremeCourt of the United States she in GOOD FAITH exhausted the applicableavenues. To NO avail. Moreover, that from the PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE,PATTERN-OF-ABUSE, CONSPIRACIES, etc. leveled against Newsome that thebringing of legal actions within this Court’s ORIGINAL jurisdiction isappropriate in that criminal/civil wrongs by the Respondents, lower courts,government agencies, etc. will continue. Heckler v. Ringer, 104 S.Ct. 2013 (1984) - Common-law writ of mandamus is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all of the avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361. 82. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided herein as wellas in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain thatthat DUTIES Newsome requested to be performed were NOT discretionary butwere MANDATORY ministerial duties and those in which Respondents wererequired to perform as a matter of law. Newsome has been irreparablyharmed/injured by Respondents and without the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates’ intervention and supervision powers owed Newsome to correct themiscarriages of justice/injustices leveled against her, Respondents will notperform MANDATORY ministerial duties LEGALLY/LAWFULLY owedNewsome. U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 51 S.Ct. 502 (1931) - Writ of mandamus will issue only where duty to be performed is ministerial and obligation to act peremptory and plainly defined. Supervisors v. U.S., 85 U.S. 71 (1873) - The office of a writ of mandamus is not to create duties but to compel the discharge of those already existing. Page 64 of 113
  • Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. 272 (1850) - A mandamus is only to compel performance of some ministerial, as well as legal duty. Heckler v. Ringer, 104 S.Ct. 2013 (1984) - Common-law writ of mandamus is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all of the avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361. U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 51 S.Ct. 502 (1931) - Writ of mandamus will issue only where duty to be performed is ministerial and obligation to act peremptory and plainly defined. Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. 272 (1850) - A mandamus is only to compel performance of some ministerial, as well as legal duty. 83. The record evidence will further support that in thePRESERVATION of her rights and for PURPOSES of showing GOOD FAITHand Department Head’s KNOWLEDGE of criminal/civil wrongs leveled againsther, Newsome took the time to provide Government Heads/AdministrativeDepartment Heads, etc. with complaints as well as the applicable subsequentpleadings so that he/she was FULLY aware of what was taking place underhis/her WATCH/ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT. Newsome taking whatshe believed to be the NECESSARY precautions so that IGNORANCE could notbe claimed by such Department Leaders/Administrative Heads. Furthermore,when served with legal process they have been TIMELY, PROPERLY andADEQUATELY informed of the legal wrongs complained of and the legalactions brought against them and/or their Agency/Business and them. Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co., 13 S.Ct. 271 (1893) - While the head of a governmental department is not subject to mandamus in matters involving the exercise of discretion, yet such writ may be issued against the Secretary of the Interior, where he attempts, without authority of law, to annul the action of his predecessor in office, . . . U.S. v. Boutwell, 84 U.S. 604 (1873) - A writ of mandamus directed to an officer to compel performance of an official duty is aimed exclusively against him as a person, and he only can be punished for disobedience. Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 109 S.Ct. 414 (1988) - Extraordinary remedy of mandamus will issue only to compel performance of clear nondiscretionary duty. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361 Page 65 of 113
  • XII. WRIT OF POSSESSION30 Newsome hereby request the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and executionof the applicable Writ(s) to RECOVER possession of property/residence from Respondent(s) tocorrect and deter the injustices/miscarriage of justice complained of. The facts, evidence and legalconclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain thetimely filing of applicable complaints/pleadings/documents to PRESERVE rights of Newsomesecured/guaranteed under the Constitution and other laws of the United States governing saidmatters. Writ of Possession: A writ issued to RECOVER the possession of land. 84. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusion provided herein as well as EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain her ENTITLEMENT to the relief sought. Moreover, Newsome being a party to action, her RESTORATION of property and possessions WRONGFULLY/ILLEGALLY taken from her without legal process or lawful court order. Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 12 S.Ct. 659 (1892) - Injunction, being merely a preventive remedy, will not lie for the purpose of restoring to possession one who claims to have been wrongfully evicted from lands under a writ of possession issued in a suit to which he was not a party. 85. The injunctive relief Newsome seeks is for purposes of deterring and preventing Respondents from engaging and continuing to engage in CONSPIRACIES and the COVER-UP of their criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome. Newsome further believes that the established PATTERNS- of-PRACTICE will sustain Respondents WILL NOT cease from their criminal and/or unlawful/illegal behavior without the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and the correction action is taken to remedy miscarriages of justices complained of. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 64 S.Ct. 587 (1944) - The injunctive process is designed to deter, not to punish. 30 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 66 of 113
  • XIII. WRIT OF PRAECIPE31 Newsome hereby request the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and executionof the applicable Writ(s) ORDERING Respondent(s) to DO some act or EXPLAIN why in action isappropriate for purposes of correcting and deterring the injustices/miscarriage of justice complainedof. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supportingExhibits/Appendices will sustain the timely filing of applicable complaints/pleadings/documents toPRESERVE rights of Newsome secured/guaranteed under the Constitution and other laws of theUnited States governing said matters. Writ of Praecipe: At common law, a writ ORDERING a defendant to DO some act or EXPLAIN why inaction is appropriate. “Pracipe Quod Reddat – A writ directing the defendant to RETURN certain property – was the proper writ when the plaintiff’s action was for a SPECIFIC thing; as for the RECOVERY of a debt certain, or for the RESTORATION of such a chattel, or for giving up such a house, or so much land . . .” 86. Newsome request, through this filing, that the Supreme Court of the United States grant any and all applicable relief to correct the injustices/miscarriages of justices complained of herein and/or KNOWN to it to remedy said wrongs. 31 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 67 of 113
  • XIV. WRIT OF PROTECTION32 Newsome hereby request the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and executionof the applicable Writ(s) to PROTECT Newsome from past and future threats and attacks on her lifeby Respondents and for purposes of correcting and deterring the injustices/miscarriage of justicecomplained of. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and theirsupporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain the timely filing of applicablecomplaints/pleadings/documents to PRESERVE rights of Newsome secured/guaranteed under theConstitution and other laws of the United States governing said matters. Writ of Protection: A writ to PROTECT a witness in a judicial proceeding who is threatened with arrest. Record evidence which will support the KIDNAPPING of Newsome which CountyOfficial(s) and/or Respondents attempted to MASK/SHIELD as an arrest – i.e. which if that waswhat it was, it too was UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL in that there was NO legalauthority/power UNDER which such acts could be sustained. See Paragraphs iii-xii/pp. 71-80;i/pp. 100-102; vi/pp. 105-107; and 41/pp.132-133 and supporting Exhibits referenced therein ofEM/ORS. A TERRORIFYING and HORRIFIC ordeal Newsome in which Newsome wasSHACKLED and/or CHAINED as though she was a SLAVE. Newsome was NOT releasedfrom her KIDNAPPERS until her parents paid the RANSOM (i.e. that was MASKED as abond). IMPORTANT TO NOTE The United States Government/Government Officials have a LONGSTANDING HISTORY for carrying out TERRORIST/ SUPREMACIST/RACIST attacks on African-American/Blacks 32 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 68 of 113
  • and/or Citizens who stand up or speak out about CIVIL/HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. See for instance EXHIBIT “36” – Police Brutality in the United States attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.Criminal acts carried out by Respondents which caused Newsome IRREPARABLEinjuries/damages. Furthermore, record evidence will support/sustain the CONSPIRACIES ofRespondents to COVER-UP their criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome. Recordevidence will support that Newsome, TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY reportedcrimes to United States Department of Justice, United States Congress, provided Court(s) withinformation of such criminal acts through her pleadings filed. All to NO avail. Newsome duringhear RESEARCH has come across information to see where BAKER DONELSON (i.e. theFOX GUARDING the Hen House) has their attorneys/people (i.e. such as Bradley S. Clanton,etc.) even in the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE for purposes ofOBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and PROTECTING their and their CLIENTS’ interest incriminal/legal matters that were brought by Newsome and/or other citizens of the United States.See EXHIBIT “37” – “Commission on Civil Rights Appointment;” information posted onBaker Donelson’s website attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in fullherein. Information which provides in part: (Jackson, MS/May 10, 2007) Bradley S. Clanton, of the law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, has been appointed by the United States Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) to serve as Chairman of its Mississippi Advisory Committee. The Committee assists the USCCR with its fact-finding, investigative and information dissemination activities. The functions of the USCCR include investigating complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right . . . studying and collecting information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution; appraising federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, . . . or in the administration of justice; serving as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws; submitting reports, findings and recommendations to the President and Congress; and issuing public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. Mr. Clanton, a shareholder in Baker Donelsons Jackson and Washington, D.C. offices, concentrates his practice in government litigation, securities and other fraud investigations, and litigation, election law and appeals. His appellate practice has included matters before the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, the Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and various other state appellate courts. His internal investigations and government litigation practice has included matters related to Securities and Exchange Commission investigations, health care fraud investigations, federal campaign finance investigations, and state and federal securities fraud class action litigation and arbitration proceedings. Previously, Mr. Clanton served as Chief Counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on the Constitution, where his responsibilities included advising the Chairman and Republican Members of the Judiciary Committee on legislation and Congressional oversight implicating civil and constitutional rights, Congressional authority, separation of powers, proposed constitutional Page 69 of 113
  • amendments and oversight of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.Information which was provided at Exhibit “59” of EM/ORS and Appendix “13” of PFEW.PERTINENT and RELEVANT information considering the LISTING of TOP/KEY positions BakerDonelson advertised on their website – See EXHIBITS “10” and “27” attached hereto andincorporated by reference. Listing that Baker Donelson moved SWIFTLY to have scrubbed onceNewsome made known to the PUBLIC/WORLD where such TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST groups as Baker Donelson and/or Respondents were hiding and lurking awaiting for theNEXT OPPORTUNITY to attack on their next victim(s) as Newsome, members of her class as wellas Foreign Nations/Leaders/Citizens. 87. Newsome believes that the record evidence will support and/or sustain that she TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY preserved her rights in committal of criminal acts leveled against her. Newsome having filed CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS with the United States Department as well as civil action in a court of law to begin addressing said crimes. All to NO avail. Thus, leaving Newsome bring this legal action before the Supreme Court of the United States so that the PUBLIC/WORLD can see just how JUSTICE work in one of the MOST Powerful Countries in the World. Levy v. Wallis, 4 U.S. 167 (1799) - The lien of a levy on personal property is not lost, though the goods are left in the hands of the defendant; unless there be fraud. Furthermore, in the legal action out of which this matter comes, Respondents committed crimes through the abuse of process and then relied upon judicial officials to AID and ABET in their CONSPIRACIES and COVER-UP of criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome. Criminal/Civil wrongs which has NOT ONLY impacted/affected Newsome’s life, but also that of SOCIETY and/or the PUBLIC- AT-LARGE. Furthermore, those engaging in such criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome are still free and at large WITHIN the general PUBLIC and some may still be holding judicial and government positions at which the PUBLIC is AT RISK and in DANGER!! The record evidence in this legal matter will support/sustain the unlawful seizure of Newsome’s property and possession by Respondents as well as recent THREATS as recent as February 2011 LIEN against Newsome, from State/County and/or their Officials threatening all Newsome’s real property, Levy against automobile or other personal property (See EXHIBIT “38” – Page 1 Only of January 2011: This Is A Billing – Bill is in APPENDIX of the Petition for Page 70 of 113
  • Extraordinary Writ that Supreme Court of United States acknowledges it is retaining as it awaits response from Newsome - attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein) will be taken as CRIMES of THEFT, BURGULARY, TRASSPASSING, etc. Furthermore, CRIMINAL actions taken WITHOUT legal or lawful authority to do so – i.e. further supporting the IMMINENT DANGER and THREATS that have been made on Newsome by government agency(s)/official(s) in RETALIATION of her having engaged in PROTECTED activities and now seeking the RECOVERY for INJURIES/DAMAGES she sustained from criminal/civil violations. 88. Newsome believes that the record evidence will support and/or sustain that she has been DEPRIVED EQUAL protection of the laws, EQUAL privileges and immunities and DUE PROCESS of laws as secured/guaranteed under the Constitution and or laws of the United States. Moreover, that Newsome has been DENIED adequate opportunity to present her claims and defenses fairly before an UNBIAS tribunal and has been DEPRIVED her rights to have matter taken before a JURY. Instead, Newsome has been subjected to the CRIMINAL acts of TAINTED/CORRUPT/BIAS judges/justices who clearly have a PECUNIARY and PERSONAL interest in the OUTCOME of these legal matters. U. S. v. MacCollom, 96 S.Ct. 2086 (1976) - Neither equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment nor equal protection requirement embodied in Fifth Amendment guarantees absolute equality or precisely equal advantages but, in context of criminal proceeding, require only adequate opportunity to present ones claim fairly. (Per Mr. Justice Rehnquist with the Chief Justice and two Justices concurring and one Justice concurring in the judgment.) U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14. XV. WRIT OF RECAPTION33 Newsome hereby request the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and executionof the applicable Writ(s) allowing her to RECOVER goods and damages from Respondents whocontinue to engage in CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled against her and CONTINUE to 33 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 71 of 113
  • THREATEN to bring and/or ENGAGE in MALICIOUS PROSECUTION against her. Thus, theapplicable Writ(s) are EXTREMELY CRITICAL and IMPORTANT to correct and deter theinjustices/miscarriage of justice complained of. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions providedin EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain the timely filing ofapplicable complaints/pleadings/documents to PRESERVE rights of Newsome secured/guaranteedunder the Constitution and other laws of the United States governing said matters. Writ of Recaption: A writ allowing a plaintiff to RECOVER goods and damages from a defendant who makes a second distress while a replevin action for a previous distress is pending. “Replevin – A writ OBTAINED from a court AUTHORIZING the RETAKING of personal property wrongfully taken or detained. - - ‘The action of replevin lies, where specific PERSONAL property has been WRONGFULLY taken and is WRONGFULLY detained, to RECOVER possession of the property, TOGETHER with DAMAGES for its detention. To support the action it is NECESSARY: (a) That the property shall be personal. (b) That the Plaintiff at the time of suit, shall be entitled to the IMMEDIATE possession. (c) That (at common law) the defendant shall have WRONGFULLY taken the property (replevin in the cepit). But, by statute in most states, the action will now also lie where the property was WRONGFULLY detained, though it was lawfully obtained in the first instance (replevin in the detinet). (d) That the property shall be WRONGFULLY detained by the defendant at the time of suit. Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading § 49, at 120 (Henry Winthorp Ballantine ed., 3d ed. 1923).’” 89. Newsome believes that the record evidence will further support and sustain a PATTERN-OF-ABUSE, PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL behavior, etc. to sustain that without the intervention of the Supreme Court of the United States Respondents will continue CONSPIRE to subject Newsome to distressful acts while this and/or legal proceedings are pending for purposes of OBSTRUCTING Page 72 of 113
  • JUSTICE, depriving Newsome of PROTECTED RIGHTS, and other criminal behavior known to them. 90. Newsome believes that the EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that relief Newsome seeks under the “All Writs Act” and/or laws governing said matters. Moreover, Newsome’s ENTITLEMENT to the RETAKING of her property and possessions UNLAWFULLY/WRONGFULLY taken and/or detained by Respondents. Property and personal possession WRONFULLY/ILLEGALLY taken from Newsome through CRIMINAL behavior/practices. Thus, supporting the IMMEDIATE relief Newsome has demanded, will demand and/or the Supreme Court of the United States is aware she is entitled to as a matter of law. See “RELIEF SOUGHT” of EM/ORS at pages 279 thru 294. Furthermore the relief sought has been reiterated in PFEW at pages 30 thru 44 for such injuries/damages sustained. XVI. WRIT OF PROHIBITION34 Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS,PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will support and sustain the relief sought herein inthat there is a PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE, PATTERN-OF-JUDICIAL ABUSE/USURPATION OFAUTHORITY/POWER, etc. by lower courts that have REPEATEDLY usurped authority/power overmatters in which they KNEW – i.e. because Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELYNOTIFIED of criminal/civil wrongs – they LACKED jurisdiction to act. Nevertheless, in proceedingto carry out their ROLE in CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome they ALL acted to their ownperil and/or demise. Thus, now being subject to PENALTIES and PROSECUTION for theircriminal/civil violations leveled against Newsome. Newsome believes from said PATTERN ofbehavior that Respondents and those with whom they conspire will CONTINUE to engage incriminal/civil wrongs which are unlawful/illegal against Newsome if the Supreme Court of the 34 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 73 of 113
  • United States does not act to DETER and PREVENT crimes reported to it - See also 42 USC §1986: Action for neglect to prevent.35 Writ of Prohibition: (1) A law or order that FORBIDS a certain action. (2) An extraordinary writ issued by an appellate court to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or to prevent a nonjudicial officer or entity from exercising a power. “Prohibition is a kind of common-law injunction to prevent an unlawful assumption of jurisdiction . . . It is a common-law injunction against governmental usurpation, as where one is called coram non judice (before a judge unauthorized to take cognizance of the affair), to answer in a tribunal that has no legal cognizance of the cause. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, board, or person exercising judicial functions in a manner or by means not within its jurisdiction or discretion. Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common- Law Pleading § 341, at 542 (Henry Winthorp Ballantine ed., 3d ed. 1923).”PERTINENT and RELEVANT information as it goes to support the KEY/HIGH positionsRespondents may hold and/or RELATIONSHIP to said KEY/HIGH positions such as that LISTEDin EXHIBITS “10” and “27” respectively – Baker Donelson info attached hereto and incorporatedby reference as if set forth in full herein. Again, information in which Baker Donelson hadSCRUBBED in efforts of COVERING UP their ROLE and CONNECTION in the CONSPIRACIESand criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome. Evidence which clearly supports and sustainsthat Baker Donelson may have had information posted for approximately a DECADE (if not longer)UNTIL Newsome went PUBLIC to let other CITIZENS and FOREIGN COUNTRIES/LEADERS,media, etc. know where such criminals have ROOTED themselves and how they haveINFILTRATED the Government for purposes of carrying out their 35 Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of thistitle, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so todo, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by suchwrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on thecase; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; . . . Page 74 of 113
  • TERRORIST/SUPREMACIST/RACIST acts against Newsome as well as other citizens and ForeignCountries/Leaders/Citizens. 91. Newsome believes that the record evidence will sustain that without the Supreme Court of the United States intervention and exercise of supervisory powers, etc. Without this Court’s intervention, Newsome will continue to suffer irreparable injury harm. Therefore, relief Newsome seeks will support that Respondents will continue to engage in CONSPIRACIES and criminal acts with KNOWLEDGE that jurisdiction is lacking and/or fail to PREVENT judicial/non-judicial officials from USURPING/ASSUMING jurisdiction with KNOWLEDGE they lack for purposes of fulfilling their ROLE in the ONGOING and PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL behavior leveled against Newsome. U.S. v. Hoffman, 71 U.S. 158 (1866) - The “writ of prohibition” is one which commands person to whom it is directed not to do something which by relators suggestion, court is informed he is about to do; and if thing be already done, writ of prohibition could not undo it, for such would require affirmative act; and only effect of writ of prohibition is to suspend all action, and to prevent any further proceeding in prohibited direction. 92. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices further sustain that while the relief sought through the bringing of legal action(s), that EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances exist to sustain the drastic remedies sought. Moreover, is SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE INTEREST. Ex parte Collett, 69 S.Ct. 944 (1949) - Mandamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies and as extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary cases. 93. Newsome believes that the record evidence will further support and/or sustain that relief sought is directed towards the UNWARRANTED assumption of jurisdiction, URSURPATION of jurisdiction and EXCESS of jurisdiction by Respondents who engage in CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome. Petition of U.S., 44 S.Ct. 130 (1923) - “Prohibition” is a remedy of exigency, in exclusion of other process of relief, and is directed against unwarranted assumptions of jurisdiction or excesses of jurisdiction. Page 75 of 113
  • XVII. WRIT OF REVIEW36 Newsome believes that the fact, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEWand their supporting Exhibits/Appendices may further sustain the need for the Supreme Court of theUnited States to bring up for REVIEW the records of the lower courts and government agencieswhich will evidence the CONSPIRACIES of government officials and those with whom theyconspired to COVER-UP the criminal/civil wrongs reported. Moreover, how the records of thecourts and government agencies may have been COMPROMISED to MASK/SHIELD an ILLEGALANIMUS. Record evidence which may support courts and government agencies deprivingNewsome EQUAL protection of the laws, EQUAL privileges and immunities and DUE PROCESSof laws; as well as other laws secured/guaranteed under the Constitution and/or laws of the UnitedStates. Writ of Review: A general form of process issuing from an appellate court to BRING UP FOR REVIEW the RECORD of the proceedings in the court below. 94. Newsome is CONFIDENT that the records of the courts and government agencies to which CRIMES were reported may have been COMPROMISED for purposes of ROLE played in CONSPIRACIES to COVER-UP criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome. Thus, the relief Newsome seeks through this legal action is also for purposes of PRESERVING what most likely are DAMAGED and COMPROMISING of evidence in the record of courts and government agencies which will support her claims and defenses. Moreover, why the courts and government agencies have DEPRIVED Newsome of MANDATORY Ministerial duties owed her and are REFUSING to provide her with the Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law that it has afforded to other citizens in the handling of their cases. However, when Newsome came with her legal actions, courts and government agencies took a FAR DEPARTURE from the laws for purposes of fulfilling their ROLES in CONSPIRACIES and COVER-UP of criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome. Zuber v. Allen, 90 S.Ct. 314 (1969) - When action is taken on a record administrative department cannot then present testimony in court to 36 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 76 of 113
  • remedy the gaps in the record, any more than arguments of counsel on review can substitute for an agencys failure to make findings or give reasons. 95. Newsome further believes that the facts, evidence and legalconclusions will sustain the relief sought may be governed under the “All Writs Act”as well as other statutes/laws KNOWN to the Supreme Court of the United States toDETER and PREVENT the legal wrongs complained of and the CONTINUANCE ofsuch crimes that have been leveled against Newsome. Therefore, based upon thefacts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in the EM/ORS, PFEW and theirsupporting Exhibits/Appendices this Court may conclude that this matter is to moveforward and because of the EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL andCRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances that the relief sought by Newsome may bebrought under the ORIGINAL JURISDICTION of this Court and UNDER whicheverstatutes/laws are APPLICABLE to the crimes and civil wrongs complained of and/orKNOWN to this Court to have occurred or is about to occur. La Buy v. Howes Leather Company, 77 S.Ct. 309 (U.S.,1957) - Where subject concerns enforcement of rules which by law it is duty of Supreme Court to formulate and put in force, mandamus should issue to prevent such action thereunder as is so palpably improper as to place it beyond the scope of the rule invoked. 96. The record evidence will further support that Newsome TIMELY,PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY notified Respondents through the APPROPRIATEprocedure that they LACKED jurisdiction – to NO avail. Therefore, supporting fromthe OUTSET knowledge that Respondents knew they were acting WITHOUTjurisdiction; nevertheless, acted to their own peril/demise. Furthermore, thatregardless of what legal recourse Newsome to took to recover frominjuries/damages/harm sustained, Respondents because of their RELATIONSHIPS tocourts and government relied upon officials to AID and ABET in theCONSPIRIACIES and COVER-UP the criminal/civil wrong reported. Therefore, asmatters of law, any other remedies that Newsome may have had, have been PROVENwould be FRUITLESS because of the criminal behavior of Respondents and relianceupon SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP/FAVORS to INFLUENCE the outcome ofmatters. In re Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 41 S.Ct. 288 (U.S.Ohio,1921) - Prohibition will issue if the lower court is clearly without jurisdiction over petitioner, who, at the outset, objected to the jurisdiction, had preserved his rights by appropriate procedure, and had no other remedy, but will ordinarily be denied, if the jurisdiction of the lower court is doubtful, depends on a finding of fact from evidence not in record, or if the petitioner has an adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. 97. The record evidence will further evidence that NewsomeREPEATEDLY notified Respondents of their LACK of jurisdiction and the fact theywere engaging in CRIMINAL behavior. To NO avail. Respondents proceeded to Page 77 of 113
  • their own peril/demise. Therefore, warranting the Supreme Court of the United States intervention, exercise of supervisory power and jurisdiction. Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728 (1969) - The clearer the lower courts lack of jurisdiction the more appropriate will be the issuance of a prerogative writ, but the writ will issue where the question of jurisdiction is undecided. XVIII. WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS37 Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS,PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain the issuance of the applicable writunder the “All Writs Act” is further warranted to SUSPEND judgments that have been obtainedthrough CONSPIRACIES and/or CRIMINAL acts. Furthermore, that the judgments and/ordecisions that come into question through this legal proceeding was obtained withKNOWLEDGE of LACK of jurisdiction and/or that Judgments/Rulings are NULL/VOID andcould NOT be upheld as a matter of law. Furthermore, Newsome having filed theAPPLICABLE and APPROPRIATE pleadings to preserve her rights and stay proceedingspending and APPEAL and/or ORIGINAL action to be sought in the Supreme Court of theUnited States. Claims in which the record evidence have been brought in GOOD FAITH byNewsome and may support/sustain she is not subject to any bond(s) and is entitled to theIMMEDIATE relief to which the statutes/laws state she is to recover and/or be awarded. Writ of Supersedeas: A writ that SUSPENDS a judgment creditor’s power to levy execution, usu. pending appeal. 98. The record evidence will support, for instance, how Respondent as recent as February 2011, served Newsome with “This Is A Billing” THREATENING her with additional injury/harm with KNOWLEDGE that she was bringing this matter before the Supreme Court of the United States and that 37 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 78 of 113
  • Respondent was WITHOUT authority to act. Nevertheless, is determined to subject Newsome to FURTHER unlawful/illegal LEVY(s), SEIZURE(s), etc. XIX. WRIT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL38 Writ of SUPERVISORY CONTROL: A writ issued to CORRECT an ERRONEOUS ruling made by a lower court EITHER when there is NO appeal or when an appeal CANNOT provide adequate relief and the ruling WILL RESULT in GROSS INJUSTICE. 99. Newsome believes that the statutes/laws may sustain that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices requires the Supreme Court of the United States under the “All Writs Act” to issue the applicable writ exercising its SUPERVISORY control over this matter. Furthermore, that legal action meets the pleading requirements to have matter brought before this Court in its ORIGINAL jurisdiction in that Respondent(s) involved include States, Counties, Municipalities and/or Cities and the government officials therein. Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Montana, in and for Rosebud County, 96 S.Ct. 943 (1976) - Writ of supervisory control is available only in original proceeding in . . .Supreme Court and, although it may issue in broad range of circumstances, it is not equivalent to an appeal. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257(3). 100. Newsome seeks the Supreme Court of the United States’ intervention and supervisor powers which MANDATORY ministerial duties are required under the laws to TAKE CHARGE of third person and/or third-part Respondent(s) and control said party(s) to PREVENT he/she/it from causing further injury/harm/damages to Newsome as well as other citizens or the PUBLIC-AT- LARGE. U.S. v. Comstock, 130 S.Ct. 1949 (U.S.,2010) - At common law, one who takes charge of a third person is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control that person to prevent him from causing reasonably foreseeable bodily harm to others. 101. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices may further support that Newsome took the NECESSARY steps and PRECAUTIONARY measures to assure that the PROPER Respondents/Parties, courts and governments along with their officials/employees/representatives are brought before the Supreme Court of the 38 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 79 of 113
  • United States in their PROPER capacity. Moreover, that Department Heads – i.e.such as President of the United States (Barack H. Obama), United States AttorneyGeneral (Eric H. Holder, Jr.), Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge JohnAndrew West, etc.) – may be reached under the JURISDICTION over said personand the subject-matter. Newsome believes that the record facts, evidence andsupporting legal conclusions may sustain that Department Heads, Supervisors,Attorneys, etc. through his/her OWN actions violated the Constitution andKNOWINGLY/WILLINGLY with MALICIOUS intent engaged inCONSPIRACIES and COVER-UP of criminal/civil wrongs leveled againstNewsome, members of her class and/or other citizens who sought to EXPOSEcourts’/agencies’ unlawful/illegal/unethical practices. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (U.S.,2009) - Government officials may not be held liable, under Bivens or § 1983, for unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under theory of respondeat superior; because vicarious liability is inapplicable, plaintiff must plead that each government official-defendant, through his or her own actions, has violated Constitution. 102. Newsome further believes that the facts, evidence and legalconclusions provided in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendicesmay further sustain the existence of EXCEPTIONAL, EXTRAORDINARY andCRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances amounting and PROVING usurpation of powerAND clear ABUSE of discretion warranting any and all relief sought under the “AllWrits Act” as well as other statutes/laws governing said matters to correct themiscarriage of justice and/or wrongs complained in this legal action. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 124 S.Ct. 2576 (2004) - Only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion will justify the invocation of writ of mandamus. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). 103. Clearly the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided inNewsome’s EM/ORS, PFEW and supporting Exhibits/Appendices may requiremandamus relief; however, as a matter of law, this is not the ONLY extraordinarywrit under which the relief Newsome seeks is to be granted. The Supreme Courtof the United States is to apply the laws which will correct, deter, prevent, etc. thelegal wrongs and miscarriages of justice that has been brought its attention. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 85 S.Ct. 234 (1964) - The writ of mandamus is appropriately issued when there is usurpation of judicial power or a clear abuse of discretion. 104. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in theEM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices may also sustain thatthe duties Newsome seeks from the lower courts and government agencies ARENOT discretionary but are MANDATORY MINISTERIAL duties owed herunder the Constitution and other statutes/laws of the United States. Page 80 of 113
  • Hudson v. Parker, 15 S.Ct. 450 (1895) - Though the discretion of a judge in a matter entrusted to his judicial discretion cannot be controlled by mandamus, yet, if he declines to exercise his discretion, or to act at all, mandamus will lie to compel him to act. 105. As the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided herein and inthe EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices may sustain, NOTALL of the legal wrongs rendered Newsome can be corrected through mandamusactions; therefore, the Supreme Court of the United States is to render justice underthe “All Writs Act” and other statutes/laws to correct the miscarriage of justice,unlawful/illegal/criminal acts of Respondents. Mandamus may not be available forthe NUMEROUS CONSPIRACIES and lower courts who acted WITHOUTjurisdiction. As a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result of CONSPIRACIES andRespondents’ COVER-UP of criminal/civil wrongs leveled against Newsome, shehas SUFFERED irreparable/indisputable injuries/damages/harm. Ex parte Bradley, 74 U.S. 364 (1868) - As respects whether mandamus would lie, no amount of judicial discretion of a court can supply a defect or want of jurisdiction. 106. The facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in Newsome’sEM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices may also sustain theSupreme Court of the United States’ exercising its superintending control in thatRespondents FAILED to perform clear MANDATORY ministerial duties as wellas CLEAR legal duties owed Newsome. Moreover, the list of Respondents mayinclude States, their Counties, Cities and employees thereof who engaged in theCONSPIRACIES and COVER-UP of criminal/civil wrongs leveled againstNewsome and because of the NEXUS and CONNECTION between the OVERTacts and the DIVERSITY JURISDICTION of Respondents - i.e. residing indifferent/various states – the Supreme Court of the United States is the ONLYcourt having jurisdiction OVER ALL Respondents, regardless of what state, city,etc. they live in; as well as subject-matter jurisdiction; wherein the lower courtsand or administrative agencies are LIMITED and REQUIRED to stay within theboundaries and jurisdiction wherein they reside – i.e. for instance Texas Courts donot have jurisdiction over residents in the State of Louisiana and vice versa,Louisiana Courts do not have jurisdiction over residents in the State ofMississippi and vice versa; and because there may be several STATES involvedas Respondents in this matter when the dust settle, it appears the ONLY adequatelegal remedy may be before the Supreme Court of the United States because of itsDIVERSITY and ability to retain JURISDICTION under the statutes/lawsgoverning said matters. Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of Court, by: Schewe, 269 F.3d 533 (2001) - . . . superintending control is an extraordinary power that may be exercised when a petitioner demonstrates both the respondents failure to perform a clear legal duty and the absence of an adequate legal remedy. Page 81 of 113
  • XX. WRIT OF SECURITATE PACIS39 Under the “All Writs Act” Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legalconclusions in her EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices may also sustainthat Respondents have REPEATEDLY made THREATS to Newsome and HAVEREPEATEDLY carried out threats which have caused Newsome bodily harm, mental/physicalharm and irreparable harm/damages in RETALIATION as well as for purposes ofDISCRIMINATING, TERRORIZING, OPPRESSING, HARASSING, THREATENING,OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, DEPRIVING CITIZENS OF PROTECTED RIGHTS, BLACKMAIL,COERCION, INTIMIDATION, ETC. Furthermore, the evidence will sustain that NewsomeREPEATEDLY receives THREATS of violence against to get her to abandon rightssecured/guaranteed under the Constitution and other statutes/laws of the United States.Moreover, that Newsome has had to endure many HORRIFIC ordeals (i.e. such as herKIDNAPPING, being SHACKLED/CHAINED by her Kidnappers, etc.), RECENT threats toNewsome’s person and property further warrants due to the EXTRAORINARY,EXCEPTIONAL and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circumstances the relief she seeks herein as well asin the EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices. Writ of Securitate Pacis: A writ for someone FEARING bodily harm from another, as when the person has been THREATENED with VIOLENCE. XXI. EXTRATERRITORIAL WRITS Newsome believes that the facts, laws, and legal conclusions may support that it is ONLYthat Supreme Court of the United States that has JURISDICTION over ALL Respondents and the 39 Defendant (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination isregarded 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 orall of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whoseinvolvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual sharedin the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). Page 82 of 113
  • subject-matter in this legal action because of the DIVERSITY of jurisdiction and the residency ofNewsome and some Respondents reside in several other states – i.e. for instance, while Newsome is aresident of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Respondents may be residents of the State of Ohio,Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, District of Columbia, etc. Furthermore, some of theRespondents may be States, Counties, Municipalities, Cities, etc. in which Newsome does NOTreside. ALL within the reach and JURISDICTION of the Supreme Court of the United States.